I don’get it. I mean, I get you wanna be cooler than Clouscard and sound smarter than Derrida and Foucault combined but what’s your actual point? Karl Marx was selling justice with the ever- fashionable rhetoric of luddites and this somehow makes Soviet urbanization without favelas equivalent with Dickensian horrors of ‘industrial revolution’ because... both end in modernity? Even if you believe the 100 quadrillion victims of communism - like you seem to do - it still doesn’t make sense. What’s your end game here, Pol-Pot, Year Zero? And the existentialism stuff... Kundera went to France and saw a Jacques Tati movie - great for him, what’s then your take on Eduard Limonov? Yeah… as I said, I don’t get it
The two forms of social organization, Soviet Communism and German National Socialism, have much in common, but the aspect that I would like to highlight is that both died of external causes. This should not allow anybody to conclude their respective social systems are not viable and that liberalism has marched victoriously over their bodies.
Both systems demonstrated a colossal power of unearthing resources of their societies and rebuilding them from the depths of a profound disaster. Their powerful propaganda was so effective that their leaders fell prey to it, unable to protect and further the successes of their initial power grab.
Born closer to the Anglo-American imperial system, still eager and capable of controlling the world, German National Socialism quickly fell prey to the machinations of the former. For this social organization to survive, it would have been enough to
(a) avoid the drive to unify the German-speaking peoples,
(b) take seriously their pact with the Soviet Union, which was an essential supplier of much-needed primary materials, and
(c) behave correctly with their minorities and avoid the national supremacist discourse.
There were enough social forces within German society that could have been attracted to participate in its construction (communists, social democrats, Catholics, and others) under the leadership of the NSDAP.
It is easy to imagine how their original leaders would have changed, or been changed, once their society had reached a higher level of development and their relationships with their neighboring countries were brought to a normal and friendly state. A key role in this would have been played by a gradual redirection of the nation's attention to future development rather than revenge and recuperation of territories.
Socialism within their own borders is the most suitable form of social organization for the European countries.
Soviet Communism demonstrated its initial vitality by winning the civil war, fending off foreign interventions, and reintegrating most of czarist Russia's territories into the Soviet Union. The immense material resources as well as the high quality of their human resources allowed the Soviet system to develop on the industrial base of czarist Russia and further it to respectable levels even before the 2nd WW. It would have been there today if the requirement of an international communism had been dropped from their propaganda at an early stage. Soviet Communism demonstrated its capacity to change; however, it was tricked into believing that change meant a friendly integration into the (dying) Anglo-American economic system (otherwise referred to as “liberalism”).
Actual Russia is a living illustration of how Soviet communism could have transformed itself. Likewise, China.
The power (or imagined power) of the Soviet Union acted as a moderating influence on the capitalist economies of the world after 1945. It was a fear of communism that drove employers to make concessions to organised labour in this period, leading to an unrivalled period of economic success for working people in the West.
During the late 1960’s, however, a phenomenon arose which emasculated organised labour in Western countries and alienated it from the USSR; the New Left.
There’s a significant body of evidence that the New Left was - if not wholly a creation of the CIA - certainly supported and promoted by pro-capitalist interests in America. But why would the CIA support ‘leftists’, you ask?
Because the New Left was liberalism incarnate - and it offered no real threat to capitalist economics. It championed individualism over collectivism. Personal choice (including lifestyle choices around sexuality, morality) over traditional working class values. The option of ‘dropping out’ and turning on - instead of working for the interests of your community.
These New Left values served capital in two direct ways. First, they diverted attention away from the bread-and-butter issues which had motivated organised labour for decades. Issues which usually resulted in labour demanding a bigger slice of the economic pie. Second, the New Left’s preoccupation with middle class - indeed, bourgeois - social causes; gay rights, racism, second and third wave feminism, and its global focus, alienated actual workers. Look at blue-collar trade union membership numbers from the 70’s to today.. in every English speaking country, they’ve declined significantly.
In summary, the New Left took the sting out of socialism by making it liberal, globalist and bourgeois. And the New Left was loved by the media. And so, the Old Left gradually became redundant.
That, in my opinion, was more accurately the end of history than the collapse of the USSR.
It was the use of liberalism by organised capital to neutralise the socialist threat to capitalism.
Of course, the Readers Digest cold warriors who benefited from it couldn’t have foreseen what their brainchild would grow into. But, nonetheless, what we today call liberalism, or wokeism, or ‘cultural Marxism’ (sic) is not the descendant of the Old Left or the USSR.
It’s the child of the Cold War right.
Globocorp begat globohomo, and no amount of wishing-it-were different and intellectual contortion can change that.
I think it is worth considering the possibility that Marxism was never intended to succeed, that it was intentionally designed to destroy and enslave.
Communism appears to have been first tried in Paraguay under the Jesuits as a method for extracting maximum wealth from the natives, who were allowed to own nothing, for their Jesuit rulers. It was then codified by the Jesuit-taught, Rothschild-funded Weishaupt as Illuminism and inspired the French revolution which, like all communist revolutions, immediately upon attaining power enacted a bloodbath of its opponents and potential opponents which, as usual, included Christians. Finally Marx (Rothschild's second or third cousin) rebranded it a few decades later with a lot of help from Engels and Moses Hess (link back to Weishaupt).
Marx seems to have acknowledged his purpose in his poetry e.g. "With Satan I have struck my deal. He chalks the signs, beats time for me, I play the death march fast and free"or "I shall build my throne high overhead, Cold, tremendous shall its summit be. For its bulwark-superstitious dread. For its marshal-blackest agony.", or "Then I will be able to walk triumphantly, Like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom. Every word of mine is fire and action. My breast is equal to that of the Creator."
I don’get it. I mean, I get you wanna be cooler than Clouscard and sound smarter than Derrida and Foucault combined but what’s your actual point? Karl Marx was selling justice with the ever- fashionable rhetoric of luddites and this somehow makes Soviet urbanization without favelas equivalent with Dickensian horrors of ‘industrial revolution’ because... both end in modernity? Even if you believe the 100 quadrillion victims of communism - like you seem to do - it still doesn’t make sense. What’s your end game here, Pol-Pot, Year Zero? And the existentialism stuff... Kundera went to France and saw a Jacques Tati movie - great for him, what’s then your take on Eduard Limonov? Yeah… as I said, I don’t get it
The two forms of social organization, Soviet Communism and German National Socialism, have much in common, but the aspect that I would like to highlight is that both died of external causes. This should not allow anybody to conclude their respective social systems are not viable and that liberalism has marched victoriously over their bodies.
Both systems demonstrated a colossal power of unearthing resources of their societies and rebuilding them from the depths of a profound disaster. Their powerful propaganda was so effective that their leaders fell prey to it, unable to protect and further the successes of their initial power grab.
Born closer to the Anglo-American imperial system, still eager and capable of controlling the world, German National Socialism quickly fell prey to the machinations of the former. For this social organization to survive, it would have been enough to
(a) avoid the drive to unify the German-speaking peoples,
(b) take seriously their pact with the Soviet Union, which was an essential supplier of much-needed primary materials, and
(c) behave correctly with their minorities and avoid the national supremacist discourse.
There were enough social forces within German society that could have been attracted to participate in its construction (communists, social democrats, Catholics, and others) under the leadership of the NSDAP.
It is easy to imagine how their original leaders would have changed, or been changed, once their society had reached a higher level of development and their relationships with their neighboring countries were brought to a normal and friendly state. A key role in this would have been played by a gradual redirection of the nation's attention to future development rather than revenge and recuperation of territories.
Socialism within their own borders is the most suitable form of social organization for the European countries.
Soviet Communism demonstrated its initial vitality by winning the civil war, fending off foreign interventions, and reintegrating most of czarist Russia's territories into the Soviet Union. The immense material resources as well as the high quality of their human resources allowed the Soviet system to develop on the industrial base of czarist Russia and further it to respectable levels even before the 2nd WW. It would have been there today if the requirement of an international communism had been dropped from their propaganda at an early stage. Soviet Communism demonstrated its capacity to change; however, it was tricked into believing that change meant a friendly integration into the (dying) Anglo-American economic system (otherwise referred to as “liberalism”).
Actual Russia is a living illustration of how Soviet communism could have transformed itself. Likewise, China.
Great job with the AI SLOP!
Headline: COMUNIST DICTATER KARL "STALIN" MARX REVIVED! He is controlling SOCIETY THROUGH EVIL AI SLOP POSTS!!!!! THE WORLD IS ENDING
I’m confused and disappointed by this essay.
The power (or imagined power) of the Soviet Union acted as a moderating influence on the capitalist economies of the world after 1945. It was a fear of communism that drove employers to make concessions to organised labour in this period, leading to an unrivalled period of economic success for working people in the West.
During the late 1960’s, however, a phenomenon arose which emasculated organised labour in Western countries and alienated it from the USSR; the New Left.
There’s a significant body of evidence that the New Left was - if not wholly a creation of the CIA - certainly supported and promoted by pro-capitalist interests in America. But why would the CIA support ‘leftists’, you ask?
Because the New Left was liberalism incarnate - and it offered no real threat to capitalist economics. It championed individualism over collectivism. Personal choice (including lifestyle choices around sexuality, morality) over traditional working class values. The option of ‘dropping out’ and turning on - instead of working for the interests of your community.
These New Left values served capital in two direct ways. First, they diverted attention away from the bread-and-butter issues which had motivated organised labour for decades. Issues which usually resulted in labour demanding a bigger slice of the economic pie. Second, the New Left’s preoccupation with middle class - indeed, bourgeois - social causes; gay rights, racism, second and third wave feminism, and its global focus, alienated actual workers. Look at blue-collar trade union membership numbers from the 70’s to today.. in every English speaking country, they’ve declined significantly.
In summary, the New Left took the sting out of socialism by making it liberal, globalist and bourgeois. And the New Left was loved by the media. And so, the Old Left gradually became redundant.
That, in my opinion, was more accurately the end of history than the collapse of the USSR.
It was the use of liberalism by organised capital to neutralise the socialist threat to capitalism.
Of course, the Readers Digest cold warriors who benefited from it couldn’t have foreseen what their brainchild would grow into. But, nonetheless, what we today call liberalism, or wokeism, or ‘cultural Marxism’ (sic) is not the descendant of the Old Left or the USSR.
It’s the child of the Cold War right.
Globocorp begat globohomo, and no amount of wishing-it-were different and intellectual contortion can change that.
I think it is worth considering the possibility that Marxism was never intended to succeed, that it was intentionally designed to destroy and enslave.
Communism appears to have been first tried in Paraguay under the Jesuits as a method for extracting maximum wealth from the natives, who were allowed to own nothing, for their Jesuit rulers. It was then codified by the Jesuit-taught, Rothschild-funded Weishaupt as Illuminism and inspired the French revolution which, like all communist revolutions, immediately upon attaining power enacted a bloodbath of its opponents and potential opponents which, as usual, included Christians. Finally Marx (Rothschild's second or third cousin) rebranded it a few decades later with a lot of help from Engels and Moses Hess (link back to Weishaupt).
Marx seems to have acknowledged his purpose in his poetry e.g. "With Satan I have struck my deal. He chalks the signs, beats time for me, I play the death march fast and free"or "I shall build my throne high overhead, Cold, tremendous shall its summit be. For its bulwark-superstitious dread. For its marshal-blackest agony.", or "Then I will be able to walk triumphantly, Like a god, through the ruins of their kingdom. Every word of mine is fire and action. My breast is equal to that of the Creator."