The thing I don’t understand is what they hope to gain by this destructive philosophy, because by destroying western civilisation, it’s highly unlikely that any sort of spontaneous Marxist replacement will replace it, far from it, it’s more likely to be some sort of fascism either religious (Islamic) or national socialism, which although socialist in nature is anathema to Marxism as it sees Marxism as a rival philosophy/social construct.
QM, there is an answer, a simple and clear answer, which you might let me work towards here at my own pace.
The classical Marxists are correct in that they say the Frankfurt School’s loose collection of individuals, driven by an increasingly common ideal were not classical Marxist. They were Neo-Marxist. They interrelated, read each other, conversed and a new perversion of Marxism arose from that.
Even the Marxists concede that much although they say it to exonerate themselves from blame and I can see their point of view. No one likes to take blame for truly evil things happening and to have it sheeted home to your ideology, to be shown as a woolly thinking idealist – it’s beyond the pale that you might be even partly guilty of crimes against humanity.
Therefore Marxists are mercifully free from any sort of personal introspection about their cause.
And so all Labour’s errors were Blair’s and Brown’s fault, Blue Labour they call it. B&B were just fascists, in bed with the capitalists, not true socialists. Red Ed will now lead the party back to its roots of true socialism where all will be well and the milk and honey will flow or at a minimum, “fairness”, “equality” and “diversity” will once again be the ideal.
There is no process of learning going on because the original flawed premise keeps reinventing itself.
All corruption of the ideal is the capitalists’ fault, all errors are made by comrades who fall away and take the PFI dollar/pound of the greedy capitalists, just as the NEP men had to be brought in in 1921 because the ideal was false. The ideology, in the socialist mind, stands intact and is not flawed in any way, otherwise they’ve all been wasting their time destroying society for nothing.
It’s social conditions which haven’t reached the correct stage for revolution which are to blame. Just get those social conditions to a disintegrated enough state and then True Socialism can find its voice and its destiny. They see themselves in the same light as waiting for the Messiah, as the Jews do, whereas He’s already been and gone, matey.
Enter the Frankfurt School
Always a thinktank, rather than streetfighting socialists waving banners, the disparate members were impatient for results, for the social conditions to arise. They had an idea or rather, one had one idea, another had another idea and so on. Soon they were onto a winner [see the series and the pdf for the rest of it] – they’d set about creating the correct social conditions and all looked rosy.
They’d need a vehicle though, a philosophy which had, as the first 4 of its 5 stages, the destruction of western civilization.
There was a ready made philosophy in Marxism and not only that, its devotees were religious fundamentalists. I challenge anyone to speak with a true Marxist and try to convince him his whole outlook is flawed. Odds are he’s spent a lifetime pursuing the ideal since university days and his politico-social development never grew up, has never been tainted by realism.
On the contrary, he writes tomes and tomes of learned, complicated prose about why this revolution failed, why the social conditions weren’t right for that one and so on. Remember he’s a tenured university professor. The fervent Rik Mayall believer is as fanatical as any Muslim terrorist or Christian fundamentalist and also loves the whole “scene” [peace, brother].
In fact, it’s more terrifying because destruction of the population through failed experimentation is quite OK in his eyes, as long as those eyes stay on the main prize. While the eyes stay on that main prize, then everything you’re condoning or ignoring is good to condone or ignore. Look at the UK today – the Marxist can’t see what all the fuss is about. It’s all going according to plan.
The essential difference between the Marxist idealist and the Frankfurter is that the latter, at some stage in the process, either was already or became morally bankrupt. The social conditions they were insidiously striving for, their personal lives [read about Huxley and Marcuse] and their goals were not altruistic, not in the least, despite being tricked out in language to suck in the average undergrad punter.
They knew, because of their own natures, that the naively idealistic Marxist was never going to see his utopia, certainly not without a bit of help from them, a redesign and incorporation of techniques from Them.
They knew there was one critical factor the Marxist project never addressed and never could address:
Marxism blamed solely the bankster and fascist, the boss who oppressed his workers and like all flawed ideologies, there was a certain truth to the original grievance, to the motivation for action.
In our “right wing” society, everyone happily sets up businesses, trades and gets along. I’ve seen, in some detail in the last few months, three bosses running small businesses – two were everything the Marxists bang on about – exploiting whenever possible, employing young girls or anyone else cheaply, forgetting pay and conditions, in pursuit of the good of the firm, i.e. the bosses’ own pockets.
The third is a bit too ideal – the Turkish cafe – and the woman who works there is as happy as Larry. The bosses are good, fair, demanding and friendly.
Overall though, a boss will follow his base instincts, as will the common man and the only reason the worker will vote Labour and follow socialism is he sees favourable pay and conditions at the end of it. Everyone wants a cushy life, everyone wants a shot at the lifestyle of the well-to-do, everyone wants a slice of the pie.
In the corrupt socialist paradigm, the way to get a slice of this static pie is to appropriate the assets of others, of people who played by the rules, as well as those who didn’t. So new philosophies are dreamed up to show that those with property must have ripped off the people of the land, in whom all wealth is invested, no matter who produces it and so, red politicians at election time speak of the grievances of the people and socialism seems the way to redress the balance – to steal from the rich and distribute to the poor.
Only it never is distributed to the poor. In fact, it is stolen, by increments, from the poor and middle man alike and floods the swollen accounts of the bonus “earners”, quangos and a myriad other greed driven people on six figure salaries, whilst the average worker gets £12 000 p.a., if he’s lucky. Please don’t quote median incomes at me – just look at the DWP jobs on offer at jobpoints and what salaries are being offered there.
The way the Marxist ignores unsupportive facts and creates his own
From a Marxist tome [yes, I do read this guff]:
The implacably zombifying domination of the Cold War for almost half a century has made almost everyone allergic to the Marxian notion of class as a social category that can explain inequalities of power and wealth in the “free world.” One symptom is the mantra of “class reductionism” or “economism” as a weapon to silence anyone who calls attention to the value of one’s labor power.
So, the Cold War has made us allergic to Marxism, not what Marxism itself is about? The Marxist then invents “class-reductionism” as a scapegoat and blames it for silencing his insistence that it’s all class struggle. He simply will not look at himself and his own ideology as the problem – the false assumptions in Marxism which render it useless as an economic and social model. At random, here’s an answer for now:
Always the socialist feels he is the altruist, he is the one who claims a monopoly in the redress of social iniquity, without considering that, due to basic social dynamics, that very socialism spawns Frankfurt Schools and the like and in the very refusal to value a worker’s labour for what it’s worth and insisting that the highly skilled and the dole parasite are one and the same in the value of their labour, he is riding roughshod over initiative, discretion and hope of something better in the future.
For a Christian to claim to be socialist is bizarre. The former is dedicated to starving the society of the only preconditions under which socialism can flourish – social misery, whilst the latter is dedicated to destroying all superstitious belief – throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
When the Christian says that socialism means altruism and fairness, he’s clearly no historian because there has been no government subscribing to socialist principles which has not ended up in deep debt and with a more dislocated society than when it started.
Why did the Frankfurters do it?
QM again: “by destroying western civilisation, it’s highly unlikely that any sort of spontaneous Marxist replacement will replace it”. Too true. “What did they hope to gain?”
The error we make here is to believe we’re dealing with rational minds. Just as the wild eyes are the first thing you notice with religious fundamentalists like the Imams, the Dawkinses, Paisleys and so on, even more dangerous are the sociopathic, cold eyes of the besuited Christian Right “leadership” in their Mercedes and multi-million dollar Christian industries, the corporate bosses and banksters, e.g. the Dymons with the perma-leers on the face and the former socialists like the Labour leadership who get into bed with them.
Baroness Ashton? Baroness? Sheesh.
Base instincts – it is always greed, always has been greed and whilst we’re there – throw lust, violence and perversion into the mix because that’s what it always descends to. It always descends to further corruption, to a cankerous mess – it never goes upwards towards the light, which is what the promise says it will. Base instincts will always trump altruism and integrity if there is no equally strong social philosophy opposing it, checking it, balancing it.
Such a philosophy as expressed in the Sermon on the Mount.
Greed is endemic, not only in the besuited ones above but also all around you today – in every young girl shopping on someone else’s money and with no spirituality inside beyond the worship of the pornstar and shoes, in every boy who can only see being drunk as the summum bonum [good though it often is to have a sip - I'm in no way against that], in every chav beating someone up, in every feminist whining about how oppressed she is not to have a better television and a few pounds more, in every man cheating on his wife, on every wife cheating on her man, in every baby boomer trying to maintain the elixir of life at the expense of his children, in every Gen X with a chip on his shoulder about how he’s not going to subsidize the lifestyle of boomers – in every unreasonable person.
In rank obesity.
It’s not just society breaking down and becoming “I’m all right Jack, me first” – it’s the whole disintegration of civilization by demoralizing and debasing the spiritual capital of people in the most deep-rooted way. It’s the impoverishment of people’s spirit which the Frankfurters merely capitalized on and exploited.
The question still hasn’t been answered
QM asked “why” and that brings us to a line most will not step across. If you stop at this line, then the above seems a good enough explanation. It allows you your humanist view that man has two sides, good and bad and that he tends to the base instinct, rather than the altruistic one.
Fine, I’ve no issue with that because it still leaves us having a pint together, it still leaves the Marxist as a destructive idealist and the Frankfurt School as a bunch of malevolent deviants. You and I can still agree up to this point. I don’t expect you to go along with me the next step.
When reality does not support a person’s position
When you have a concept of yourself as someone wonderful and the reality shows, through other people’s reactions, that in fact you have feet of clay, then the mind goes through a process:
1. other people are fools;
2. others are against us, trying to destroy us – it’s someone else’s fault and I can tap into or create philosophies to prove that;
3. I’ll destroy them first, just to show they can’t treat me this way – nemo me impune lacessit.
The archtypal embodiment of the utter sociopath, concerned with destroying anything he can, throwing his toys out of the pram because he can’t have what he wants, is “the evil one”.
Call him what you want.
If you can’t accept the personification of evil, if you believe there is no evil entity or intelligence behind what entered the minds of the Frankfurters, once they’d started down that destructive path, if you think that the Emperor Palpatine working on an Anakin Skywalker already psychologically susceptible to his wiles and lies is a complete fiction, then once again – fine.
If you put it down to just the nature of Man – fine. It still doesn’t alter the fact that, as men and women succumb to destructiveness, having no counterbalancing force within them, then they will also, inevitably descend to a form of bitter madness.
I’ve just been reading a story of post-war Germany and how some Israeli hitmen were bumping off the Old Comrades and one of them is finally confronted, a la Lord of the Flies, with his deeds.
In fact, he has turned out just as murderous, just as mindlessly vicious, as any of the Nazis [obviously without the fiendishly refined methods of torturing and killing]. And his justification?
Now though, he just wants to kill and hurt and maim and rage. You tell me where that comes from? Maybe you won’t accept an evil one but you at least see the way these things always go, don’t you?
So the answer to QM is that these were not rational minds. What remaining sense of humanity had been in them was squeezed out by the new twisted philosophical purpose which now gripped their minds.
And today, we are paying for that.
The pagan series will conclude tomorrow.
Filed under: Politics & economics