A Poetic take on Modern Marxism

Flower Power + Electricity = ?

The path the breeze follows
across the early-morning fields
completes a circuit,
and the shocking indigo daisies
lie just above the careful daffodils,
like a robe in different phases.
The way the all-encompassing
red sunlight scars them is a sign,
like a star above them,
and the red birds come out to sing.
They sing a while, and then move on.
The black shape of circling eagles
turns on in the sky, open eyes
staring down for blood.
They circle on like stonehenge,
as the field is blown this way and that.
After all prayers and propitiations,
what remains of earth and sky is a sacrifice.

Cycle of Deception

After Trump criticised the Clintons' penchant for donors, he has been leasing out positions to top donors.

The state would be quite a thing to pay for.

Meanwhile, after attacking the dominance of enterprises like Goldman Sachs, he has generally given them significant control once more.

His attacks on the Clintons for their business ties might have some merit, but this merit is summarily yanked away by his own replication of these flaws.

If America wished to be great again, they would do better replacing their 'governmental positions' and possibly some of their populace with immigrants.

Trump's whole campaign is of about the same tenor as the cats of the old 'lolcats' meme who exclaimed, 'I can haz cheeseburger?'

Trump preceded the campaign outside of politics, and shall end it extraneous to political history.

Upping the Ante

Identity politics is a paralytic force on any political figure. After they have accepted its buzz-words and enshrined it - as it wishes to be - as the central issue, they are subject to increasingly personal and sneaky attack by its purveyors.

So despite people's penchant for 'shock,' things like this easily get past certain organisations:

"President Obama’s refusal to veto an anti-Israel U.N. resolution was ranked Tuesday as the most anti-Semitic incident of 2016 by the Simon Wiesenthal Center.

"In the annual anti-Semitism report, the center placed the Obama administration’s decision Friday to abstain on the UN Security Council resolution condemning Israeli settlements at the head of its list, the “Top 10 Worst Global Anti-Semitic/Anti-Israel Incidents.”

"“The most stunning 2016 U.N. attack on Israel was facilitated by President Obama when the U.S. abstained on a U.N. Security Council resolution condemning Israel for settlement construction,” the center said."

 (Link.)

And this for neutrality.

When accused of Anti-Semitism, there is often no way out unless you're the Prime Minister of Israel.

Entirely-Dëvoid of Interest

Engels is sometimes capable of rather notable oversights.

"The simpleton [...] will certainly not have to complain of “gaps entirely devoid of interest”. It will take him all his time to prepare his pleasures and get them in the right order, so that he will not have a moment left to enjoy them."

Engels once married someone as they were dying, a marriage which indeed lasted for a rather brief time and may be adjudged something of a triumph of the ideal over the real. In any case, it would appear that Dühring here has hijacked Engels' own 'polemic' to ridicule Engels. This is merely the shadow of a polemic, one which cannot ascertain that its whole point is not to attack its 'author.'

In general, however, it is a poor polemic that illustrates nothing that Marx has not dealt with far better elsewhere; that continually presumes to have an understanding of a topic where no such understanding is presented or explained. Poor Eugen does not in all this time come to stand for anything particularly notable, in this light it's a descent from the earlier polemics (somehow) to just name-calling accompanied with vague platitudes. It often merely agrees with the 'target' of the polemic, but then says 'but,' as though this word in its hallowed isolation were sufficient to make it 'polemical.'

The whole piece in its manic tone has less the appeal of a Hamlet and more the tone of an illiterate Lizzie Burns' erratic flails before death.

[From Юрий Хохлов's video on Youtube.]

A Poem about Tay Bridge

Every age of poetry has a certain calling. What the world of poetry needs most now is a poem about Tay Bridge, which was once the calling of all the illuminated Muses that could be found. And the age itself seems to bay for it, as a vampiric coven bays for blood. So we shall furnish it one.

Tay Bridge

I have seen you here sometimes,
you have been nearby sometimes,
yet never have you felt
the sound of the bridge falling
the sound of the Tay Bridge falling
the sound of its fall
the sound of its revival -
you have not heard it sing
its brief songs.

It fell beneath like a rock,
fallen into the river,
and then it was loudest.
When it fell.

Only Calamity and Trouble were on hand
to re-build it, but then it fell again,
for they were not firm foundations.
The others said it was a liability,
eventually even Calamity gave up in fury.

For has not the Muse come once
to where this bridge lay -
lay, indeed, in every way -
lay prone to the elements,
which shifted it to sing only,
'Welcome to this bustling city —
But this bridge is cursed.'

As it falls, the city shifted into
blurring, blinding colours like the
cataclysmic sound of falling hail.

Yet the bridge saw the colours blur
eventually to blinding white.
For this bridge is bride to its slaughter,
its excursion is its demise,
its hopes are crushed by each edge
of a grinding wheel.
The blood it wears it weaves,
like a spider in a broken palace,
but how good is the blood
which it weaves?

As the Bridge falls, the city's scenes
become more frantic, but the water shields its eyes,
and shields the city's bride from its groom,
wipes them clean with its own hands,
with the violent waves and the grey mist waters.
As the water envelopes,
there is a red shift in the scene,
and the Bridge's noise -
which they all hear -
says that they shall break apart,
and each set against each,
until a kingdom refracts from the depth of ruins.

They do not all see.

An Old Poem (from around early 2012)

Maoism

Once by this house, and on this street,
We debated about the peasantry.
We used to quote the small, red book, and try
To hold up half the sky.

We fought for hours, next to the station,
About the right to national liberation;
And, calming down while walking home –
Through the fields – read Lenin’s tomes.

And though it might seem a contradiction,
Yet, said Mao, a life without contradictions
Was like a word rhymed unto itself;
Yet though it might seem that, between yourself

And I, that words were only spoken
Without affection, yet they broke
The silence that now consumes this street;
This street, like murdered peasantry.

Perhaps the mass line was a myth,
Yet, though myth, at least there was a line
Between us, between where we each would sit;
Now split apart, like Trotskyists.

US Politics: An Incubated Disease?

Famously, the somewhat milder HIV turns into the feared and here primary AIDS. AIDS makes diseases harsher, including of course HIV. There is a poetic flair to this - HIV, which is known for worsening the effects of diseases, can itself worsen into something more deadly.

This election was competed between Hillary Clinton and Donald 'Trump,' from 'The Apprentice' and now apparently occupying a suspiciously similarly-named role, and unsurprisingly Clinton was the less controversial - although still notably so, due to various scandals. Clinton attempted to run a campaign based on a secure reputation despite all of this, which seems unhelpful. Bernie Sanders may have contributed to this enforced mildness of the Clinton campaign, which was so far departed from their situation, by Sanders' more extreme campaign leading to Clinton having to identify with something different and more mild and hence by the point of the election most of their momentum involving running against more radical tendencies. Hence, they had little to go on but name, and their name was continually tarnished. This suggests that the Sanders campaign was at least somewhat effective in its claim to represent a more radical tendency.

In any case, Donald Trump is a businessman, which might seem like a conflict of interest. Their company is being left to their children. This seems, despite the charade, to merely refigure the conflict of interest. A businessman in charge of a company, who is also President, has an evident conflict of interest - they value a private economic entity and look out for its interests as opposed to that of others, yet they are expected to govern the whole economy in negligence of these. They merely disguise the issue, while still looking out for these interests. Clearly they identify with these 'children's' interests, after giving them the companies - they're keeping the nation 'in the family.' The hands of the company change - the valuation remains the same. It is a concession to ideals, but is otherwise idle.

As such, the general partition of the state has taken on a slightly exaggerated form. It is no longer basically an abstraction formed by the abstraction of capital. If it were, this is at least political - the question of changing it or dealing otherwise is opened. As things are, the Trump administration, as Clinton's would be, is essentially becoming numb to the political. There is still an uncertainty there - the administration does give credence to some sort of division between the state and private sector, by trying to off-load the private in a form, but nonetheless sunders this division ultimately. While not as explicitly non-political as Clinton, it is still going in that direction. The state is an essentially idle figure.

The state in capital is not the state as such - if the expression is permitted. The state is the organisation of society as one entity in an explicit form, the nexus of a given society of a given, uniform form. This is necessary insofar as a society is across its length subject to certain specifications - of whatever form. Hence, if it excludes certain things, for instance, it has a state.

In any case, the state under capital is phased out because it can only represent an intrusion on the essentially private lives of citizens in 'civil society.' It is an unwelcome guest, as Orwell captured in their slightly absurd 1984 with the image of Big Brother enforcing rooms they can look into. In the Reaganite movement and so on, it turned out that some didn't want the state anywhere - others are happy so long as it is only a dressing-up, 'sanctification' of what they do - and hence viewed anything it did as invasive, were hence beset by constant examples of state interference. Orwell's novel was hence in some ways a capitulation to these interests, an attempt to appeal to what they find appealing. In general, its exaggerated imagery was unlikely to devolve into much but a condemnation of the Soviet Union, as they drew on common imagery for it, as well as a limp and undefined swipe at British socialism because it might do the same thing. However, they might have gone too far. The state necessarily exists, but people need to know that it isn't violating these things, a 'sign' or signal via intervention that it is passive and 'normal.' This is a contradiction. Hence, people like Reagan or Thatcher are still departures from the norm, and the ideologues associated with them especially so, private entities would generally not like the state to get so far out of reach that they don't know what it's up to is 'safe.' The state is hence a field which deals with fear, suffering, intrusion, and so on.

When the state becomes as in this election something numb to politics, it hence becomes a realm dealing in basically private suffering or disease. However, it necessarily deals with private suffering of a social kind or which bears the mark of social interaction within it - that is, STDs. The format of the election is hence appropriate, as was Hitler, a fascist's, late identification of 'syphillis' (also identified in Mein Kampf as a clear example of the state's corruption) as one of the 'plagues' of modern society, alongside alcoholism. In general, people don't always begrudge diseases, but they do begrudge people being asocial or value people for having had sex, etc. People with STDs wear this mark explicitly - if you see someone with an STD, you know they're 'normal' in some way or have had such interaction. Otherwise, most would have to admit that they would have to wait before assuming as to these people's social lives. Hence, the assumption that one will meet a 'normal' person with such a 'normal' social life, which may only be violated, basically presupposes something like this. Diseases which touch on social relations can only be transmitted through such means, means like mere proximity are while related not explicitly a form of interaction. Hence, these are notable in society. How are people to remain 'social,' 'socialites,' or so on, when alone, except by wearing such physical marks? Hence, when Marx notes that the wealthy man 'carries his social relations around with him' in the form of money, in a concrete sense or insofar as they are personally claiming these social relations and the struggle around these, they must draw on something similar. Capital can't exist alone, it is always in a relation, always positing an obstacle or hindrance. How, then, is the capitalist to live their necessarily private life, consume within this, except by such a hindrance existing within this privacy? Hence, a capitalist is a manufacturer of their own diseases, and otherwise idle and locked away from society. When the capitalist is alone and yet a capitalist, they are afflicted - one might rather say they all had 'carbuncles.' Hence, all of this affliction is set at the door of the state - hence the ease of accusing them of 'socialism,' or whatever else, as happens periodically and often in a slightly peculiar fashion.

When Jesus observes that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than the rich man to inherit the kingdom of heaven, they are undermined in part by their own mode of operation. They tend to prefer using extravagant imagery to evoke a sense of wonder around their religion and things like faith - the more extravagant, the more impressive. Hence, saying that the rich man needs to complete this miraculous, impressive operation is merely to say that they are still rich and grandiose - they are now 'rich' not only in wealth, but also in Christianity. While Christianity before capitalism was about going beyond the Mosaic law as commanded, Christianity as capital emerged became merely a question of an essentially idle struggle that nobody expected to go anywhere - hence, the rich merely ended up with a more impressive, religious-sounding version of this 'struggle.' When Hitler named his book 'Mein Kampf,' they were aware no doubt of the posturing of German Social Democracy - a fossilised entity of use to no-one by then - around struggle, as well as Marxist uses of it. They had been through the Bolshevik struggle against Tsar Nicholas, etc., as well. Hence, in proclaiming this book a part of 'national socialism,' they were in a way making a humorous gesture in the vein of 'l'etat, c'est moi.' Hitler, of course, had been poor an imprisoned, like Germany, and hence put a lot of emphasis on the head of the state having to be someone who could do this in a somewhat apt manner. In any case, however, Jesus' observation nonetheless is slightly thorned - a 'camel' passing through the needle is an image of an awkward fit and humps which fit awkwardly, of something like a body with ulcers which is in any case unlikely to get through. Of course, it is also an ironic image of sexual conduct, which they recently said one should avoid if one can resist it - otherwise one is no doubt a sex-bot of some sort and unlikely to care for Christianity. Money is a universal commodity, it represents prostitutes as much as other types of commodities - hence this sort of thing might have been a concern, as indeed it was in Marx's day with the Jack the Ripper killings. Paul also drew on the image of prostitutes as parasitic in-growths on an individual person.

Given that people such as musicians must be promoted for what they have done being impressive or facing inordinate obstacles (eg. they can't make good music and don't know what it is) and prevailing, the 'camel' metaphor is in some ways merely inviting such people to be proclaimed 'extraordinary Christians.' When Kierkegaard criticised a Bishop's representation as such during their funeral period, they would have perhaps been taken aback to hear that not only the Bishop was such a Christian but also a random girl singing about the pleasures of fornication.

As such, the state as it is posited is very much a realm of disease, and the treatment of immigration is very much an image of 'disease' - foreign incursion. Clinton generally deals with immigration in terms of the 'family,' which is merely an apparently milder treatment - when called on it, they are just as quick to attack people who are less anti-immigration. However, unlike in the past, there is no imagery of the Soviet Union to support this or try to isolate politics from it - and in general, accusation of Obama's 'socialism' might simply reflect that the state continues to intervene slightly, but has no-one else to blame it on. Reaganism and so on were in some ways merely a necessarily response to the weak, Gorbachev-era Soviet Union - if the US took on an interventionist or 'normal' garb during that time, the state would immediately find itself targetted, and would be on-set with the dissent of private entities that used to be 'happy citizens.' Nobody finds, 'Actually, I, the Head of the State, will stop doing anything and just sit here and be pathetic,' particularly stimulating politically (who's supposed to get excited about these elections), nor impressive, aggressive, etc., it's merely a temporary garb. It might seem impressive briefly, then it is abandoned. And besides, as stories go an actor taking the state and then deciding that, nah, they aren't really fit to do anything with it, seems slightly underwhelming - everyone else thinks that as well, about most actors. Schwarzeneggar gets by on suggesting conservative, controversial motions sometimes or religious intervention, not by merely going, 'Actually, Arnold Schwarzenggar should have nothing to do with governing,' which is merely a truism. Statecraft may be good, but if people are electing people like Hillary Clinton then why should the state bother? The people betrayed someone like Jimmy Carter, in a humiliating way, then apparently get angry because they got what they asked for - because Carter had some form of vengeance for this.

However, without a fall-back in the form of the Soviet Union, this fall back from politics is merely a dissolution - it does not constitute a real society. Obviously, the more capitalist society shrinks back from 'external' intervention that it itself begets, the more this comes to seem domineering and totalitarian. Hence, along with each USA, a Soviet Union, and so on. Hence, there might come the illusion that one might object to capitalism by just using categories used to characterise the Soviet Union as opposed to the USA. However, these are instruments of US capitalism, not just neutral figures. Hence, one should be cautious about this. In any case, while the 'bureaucratic' nature of the Soviet Union derives from its expressing these tendencies and hence being merely a non-directed channeling of these harsher forces, this at the same time implies that as time has gone on fear has increased and seeped into fictitious, expansive societies as in 'The Hunger Games,' without being clearly faced. If something increases to exaggerated degrees, people might fictionalise it - otherwise, they are usually content to deal with it in a normal situation, where it is presented already. This can work both ways: both social tendencies, and on the other hand things which are rejected and shunned to exaggerated extents in these social and literary tendencies. The more freedom shuns other things, the more it is revealed to merely be fear. Nobody makes a choice for 'freedom,' merely against other things. Yet one must know what one is trying to do, before determining how to go about it.

Trump is said to be aiming for a 'confrontational' government akin to a corporation's approach. But they might be unlucky if that was ever an intent. They would have to try and make up for or apologise for any of these 'confrontations' before they could initiate such an approach to a government - to an entity which has to deal with all of these. In all likelihood they do not have a cunning plan prepared.

Amusingly, while Trump's campaign is identified as 'us vs. them' (well, it's a campaign, innit), the dichotomy in the 20th Century was often 'USA vs. USSR.' Presumably this sounds more acceptable? In any case, seemingly their campaign pretty much just set off from how their Presidency might sound and went on from there. Clinton, on the other hand, didn't quite have a clean image through most of it, though they did try. It seems to be a slight curse of the Clintons that their clean image deserts them past a certain point. It's somewhat like the band Paramore - although they might start out 'alt' or 'punk,' and gain a clean image from diluting this genre into something acceptable, eventually they are too closely associated with it and hence gain an image which isn't quite as notable as Taylor Swift for instance. However, they can change genres to try to keep up with this - Hillary Clinton is also known for U-turns - but a politician can only be replaced by someone else. In addition, the Clintons are an established political group and not free to depart from this, hence they are forced into a certain dynamic. They try to make something seem safe, and in a dedicated manner, but then can't keep going. In the USA after neo-liberalism, the sense of responsibility around the state vanished - they didn't seem to have any obligations, they were just a private job for their own enjoyment. Eventually this came to a head somewhat, and Bush attempted to restore some sense of governance and drew on Christian conservatism, but was also drawn into several external wars where they attempted to present an image of a 'benevolent' America. An American Republican was, to the Middle East, just a more insistent 'liberal.' The Republicans attempted to promote 'America,' patriotism, and what-not, but they merely ended up with garden liberalism. Capitalism is a circular system: the further you depart from one side, the further you are still a part of the same system and conditioned by them, and hence ultimately in agreement with their views which derive from capital.

The USA likes to make dramas out of little, so that their politics (outside of elections) is still quite dry is a testament to, in the Middle East for instance, both sides basically doing the same thing and continuing or opening wars there, etc. People pretend there are sides briefly, then they obey and esteem the leader and system regardless - it was an illusion, and they are satisfied with this and promote it. The US elections are more of an action than anything. Ultimately, elections can only be as strong as their weakest link - if it's just a brief rising of drama around the election followed by settling in, this hardly has the place to support radical antitheses. Hence the sense of oppression around radical politics in the USA. Radical politics rarely led to revolutions in established democracies, apart from perhaps the Nazis and that only in part. They generally would prefer to concede to this democratic process, and then play merely a subordinate role - or they abstain from politics entirely, or give way completely, generally alongside some ultimately democratic palaver.

Strangely, the 1995 Shamen album 'Axis Mutatis' opens with 'Destination Eschaton,' 'TransAmazonia,' (Trump), then 'Conquistador,' and the strangely named 'MK2A.' MK2A here stands 'Mauna Kea to Andromeda.' Later, 'Heal (The Separation)', which resembles Clinton's approach to immigration and attempting to send people back to their families - which Sanders notably attacked. It somewhat resembles the vaguely amusing Star Wars scene where Anakin Skywalker walks into a closed room only to find Palpatine and Mace Windu fighting alone. The prequels of course end with Obi-Wan warning Anakin that he can't win now that Obi-Wan has the 'higher ground.' Which is an amusing end in really a few ways, although inconsistent with the series so far of course. In any case, this election is sadly not as mystical as The Shamen's music. It also lacks even the grace of such excellent sentences as, 'For the gift of the present, we owe it to the moment,' and, 'Is it only gold you're looking for, / And will you still not see the treasure long concealed within me?'

US Politics: The Nation of the Fad

Some pop singers have more longevity than American Presidents.

American politics is the manufacturing of fads.

The media hence has to treat such politicians not only in terms of their notability, but also their brief duration. It also has to take into account their capability of losing the election, and possibly fading out. As such, a lot of the hype around candidates is precisely what will fade away or be cleared out - they have to be covered in such a way if the whole process of the election cycle is to be covered in a continuous manner, with the next election also reprising these themes, and also to avoid this seeming like a coup. This hence means that each candidate's coverage is in some measure a betrayal.

Fads tend to mean little. Sometimes, as with Rebecca Black, they might be subject to derision. Other bands, like Jack Black's, tend to be slightly more humorous about their faddish tendencies and being out of the norm - although not necessarily a werewolf. It might seem peculiar if Stephenie Meyer (not Marx's famous opponent) later clarifies that Jacob Black was actually scared of being indoctrinated into rock music, and it was all a metaphor. It would be even stranger if, alongside using chess pieces on their covers, they also noted that it was a metaphor for the King's Gambit when a Knight up - which goes in a nightmarish fashion. Like, Bella considers Forks boring and so loses the Knight. Eventually she check-mates Cullen, which Meyer misinterprets as a relationship.

It's a dark and miserable place because the vampire had the temerity to use the English opening.

In any case, manufactured fads also have a peculiar movement. American politics does not by itself know any other kind of movement. Their movement must also in part betray them. Hence, there is always a certain sense of futility around such movements, as with Obama's - they are noise without content, phrases which are merely used for effect. To construct an effect more sequinned than the content is to construct promises that will be broken.

Fads tend to involve broken promises - Clinton cheated and lied to the nation (they did not steal as much, in an official sense, except if you count taxes as this), George W. declared war with little reason and promoted this among politicians and the public. The general sense of Democrats betraying everyone and themselves was present both in the Sanders and Trump campaigns, while Bush's social conservatism (if moderate) was an attempt to right the image of the Presidency and restore a sense of authority. Hence, through all of the web of deception, if one cares to check, one has not clear sides or political genres but personal struggles. Capitalist atomisation means that there is no other available way to put forwards a political view.

The left tends to deal in panics. Bush hence aided Obama's Presidency, perhaps more than they needed to. The American left tends also to fads, and hence has so many different and new Satans - 'fascism,' whatever that is, Reagan, neocons - that Dante would require a few hundred circles of Hell just to accommodate this model. It is hence mostly non-functional, in this form. With Sanders it took on a slightly different form, more focussed around creating panics than fearing them - as it had to, against a feminist-favoured rival who was offended by everything.

The left hence tries to quiet panics. Terrorists aim to create them. Conservatives tend towards liberalism, but might occasionally try to speak despite panics, promptly apologising by having a go at terrorists. They both serve the same side in the fundamental social struggle, so it's one step forwards and two steps back. Conservatism is hence apologetics, and needs more notably the power of a God or religious figures to reconcile it with its liberal tendencies or snow over its non-liberal tendencies with reconciliation and chanting 'Kumbaya.' Hence, organisations like the WBC, which use religion as an abrasive force, are a bit too far for American politics - although most of what they say is quite straightforwards conservatism, only with the religion taken along with this rather than serving as a 'balm.' It's not really like an opiate for them, is it. Hence, if religion is used to 'heal' a sick society that it might remain sick (which is a mere placebo or empty re-assurance), it is forced into contact with elements which find this society problematic and must moderate this, and hence in general comes into contact with opposed forces and finds a situation hostile to this society. It hence is also adapted to this. If, as Marx said, the happy religious has as their religion the Judaism of practical life, then religion as such only comes up when discontent must be dealt with, and hence it might appear that the discontent have a monopoly on religion. The religions themselves hence tend to be quite distant from the society, or fall behind these non-liberal elements. But this is deceptive - these religions must also allow for such treatment, and hence like Marxism simplify things to the point where the Soviet Union or America can easily claim them. Christianity betrays Christians, and hence Marx locates it in another religion which is less centred around the same themes - and in the cultural and communal aspect of this.

While there are many different leftist organisations - the SPUSA should have merged with the Greens by now, as should the CPUSA - this can at least give the illusion that the left is plausibly represented. Two Parties is like two different people, and hence it creates the sense of a left when realistically apart from a few Stalinists it's just Greens and other pseudo-Democrats. That's a very shallow bay. Elsewhere, the right is more varied, but tends to be if anything closer to liberalism outside of the Republicans - even Trump is a RINO. It's a treacherous terrain for conservatives, but this might be in part because conservatives so often go in incompatible directions each with stress, attack Islam for not being liberalism - an easy way of gaining popular appeal - and then attempt to avoid liberalism, attack liberalism for being too dissolute and then attempt to allow for more dissolution. Still, you'd suppose that socially conservative tendencies would have to find some home over there, as they are continually brought into circulation. Perhaps it is a more obscure or offensive Party - the more one's opponents are dissolute liberals by comparison, the more offence one will tend to cause.

In general, American political Parties cannot trust in their base, only treat them as a form of support. They are always content with this. Hence, people who fund them and such count moreso as their base. They thus can only subsist so long as there is a division from this mass in society. However, the dishonesty runs both ways. Hence, there is only the semblance of elevation in this general area or social structure.

American politics should not be trusted. Its enthusiasm of one day is the decline of the next. It circles within this realm of finitude. To paraphrase Psychotic Waltz, its order is its anarchy, its violence its peace; destruction is its architect, its woman and its priest. A new Presidency is already a new upheaval in someone else's nation, a fall and rise. America lives on the destruction of its leaders and their decline. It has not found the energy, within this role on the world stage, for a 'revolution.'

The Trump Presidency

So apparently the USA has entered a Trump Presidency. Is it that important? Not really. Even the left seem to have bought into the US election line quite thoroughly. Certain leftists object to socialist Parties using the elections (and perhaps also the monetary system), but are now panicking and railing because Clinton didn't win. For them, socialist Parties are going too far, but Heaven help us if people don't vote for - Clinton. We must, of course, dissent from this line.

The Democrats wished to promote their campaign based on name, identity politics, and celebrity, with Clinton as favourite and eventual candidate. However, Trump is obviously a more interesting campaigner than Clinton was, and the Democrats' reliance on celebrity and name instead of politics fell foul to a Trump campaign that out-did them easily on this field of battle.

The Democrats have by this point become merely a shill of identity politics, humorously the same fate as that of modern Marxism, with no political meaning. The Republicans were hence forced to take a negative stand against this, as should be understandable. Why not take on your enemy where they try to derive strength? However, Trump was forced to do this in quite uncertain ways, with occasional forays, rather than an overall approach. Trump caused offence, but only in partial ways. There was a sense of widespread and fundamental political corruption, but this was limited, vague, and had an even more vague relation to the rest of the nation and the economy. Hence, they did not totally paralyse the Democrats, merely trouble them and then ride their luck. Still, they did at least attempt to keep the campaign directed in that manner and allow for hostility towards the Democrats' shallow recent nominations.

Claims that Trump is a fascist are laughable, and should be treated so. 'Trump is a fascist,' 'Obama is a communist,' and so on are merely dramatic slogans. In this case, they did not hinder Trump nearly as much as the Democrats would like. They merely raised the question, 'Then what exactly is Hillary Clinton?' 'Uninteresting' would be the most likely answer. The Democrats attempted a campaign on shallow premises, then Trump forced them to try characterizing things as some sort of epic political struggle, which they quite simply could not support and which undermined their own campaign. This hence played into the hands of the Republicans. As much as Trump's fairly mild stance might have limited this, it was enough to give them a chance at things. When we talk of 'election controversy,' this controversy wasn't two-sided, Clinton had little to do with it, and was hardly mentioned - Trump was all that both sides were talking about, not Clinton, and it was the Republican side's to win or lose.

As much as Trump, like Obama, outdid Clinton with a campaign taking on radical trappings, there might be a lesson of sorts for Sanders supporters. Sanders often tended to down-play any radicalism, and was reluctant to go on the offence against establishment politicians in spite of Sanders' pretence of being 'revolutionary' or 'radical.' Their campaign was keen to present its views as placid and non-confrontational. In general, then, a time when few things are anathema in politics - as we saw with Trump's election - is good for socialists and has seen a rise in anti-capitalist agitation from figures like Corbyn, but the socialists and leftists will probably expend too much energy trying to re-institute these 'anathemas,' and only later realise that they are still as much the victims. Trump hence leaves official socialism in something of a bind, chasing their own tail if you like. Organisations like SPUSA or the Greens have responded in turn by a far less radical or offensive campaign than Trump's, in spite of often claiming to be 'socialist' and 'revolutionary,' which might lead you to conclude that Trump being elected instead of them is fair.

Anyway, more pressing matters.

Sadly, unlike previous elections, the candidates were not as clearly named after a $$$$$nake. While Nader of course resembles 'nadder' (or 'naedre'), a word for snakes later amended to the now popular 'adder,' this election was sadly less prominent in its representation of the United $$$nakes of America, such that despite Trump's claims to making America Great Again he might as well be President of Canada.

People should do something about this.

The common adder is also known as viperus berus, and hence Barack Obama and perhaps Bush may be given a pass here. Trump is hardly going to make a black forest racer, or Drymobius melanotropis, by building a wall across the borders. While there is some effort, it isn't really sufficient. Snakes don't even build walls.

Not that they need walls, which they are known to get past in order to victimise homeowners. In this, snakes - like the black forest racer - resemble Odysseus.

In any case, Trump is probably less alarming in the recent history of the USA than, say, Lyndon B. Johnson. When the overall dynamics of the American government system are taken into account, the space for Trump to influence would be negligible. The USA stays the same between most Presidencies, or it wouldn't seem like the same country. Donald Trump's portrayal of corruption is a stark and positive improvement on Obama's struggle for 'change' - while Obama's portrayal avoided taking issue with much, and so seemed inoffensive, Trump draws on a negative portrayal which draws on a wider criticism of society as rigged and problematic. If anything, Rev. Wright should have run in Trump's stead. Obama's Presidency was always likely to be inert, as the 'positivity' of the campaign came to nothing, such that Obama was in a way reduced to just a performance. In a way, Obama's campaign drew on a sense of cynicism or criticism that they were increasingly forced to avoid, due to PR issues as with Rev. Wright, and hence this movement was limited slightly artificially.

In any case, the elections are over, and hence that periodic drama is over. Most things that happen in official politics between election cycles, apart from wars, will be dwarfed by the prospect of further elections. If the American socialist movement remains - as it now is - a wing of liberal activism, shilling for Clinton, a vocal but comfortable part of the liberal movement, then it is unlikely to lead to anything positive. What is needed, then, is a movement suited to this American political climate that can draw on revolutionary and radical politics while remaining outside of the socialist movement.

Observations on Marx in History: Das Thrace Marx (VI)

VI.

It is often overlooked that Petrarch's characterisation of himself as having been reduced to an 'old tale' amongst the people is strangely reminiscent of, not only the Holocaust which for many was nothing but, a faux-moral sermon in lieu of an event to be described - this was often the feminist viewpoint on Petrarch, as also Kierkegaard -, and also not only Kierkegaard, but also a humorous reflection on his other poetry which is not 'scattered rhymes,' but rather about such as 'Scipio,' and ancient themes, etc., and generally was supposed to be higher reputed. More on this in a following post about Kierkegaard.

Despite which, "Ma ben veggio or sí come al popol tutto favola fui gran tempo," is a fairly unwieldy phrase.

General and Particular

Marxism is often treated as a short-hand for politics perceived as serving some mass of society. However, views like nationalism of various kinds have often served these people, if we are to treat them as creatures with political and social wants, but Marxism is not held to take this into account. Marx is hence inevitably seen as the product of an intellectual not a part of these masses. Otherwise it would appear clearly that this popularised Marxism is an inchoate sham.

The Soviet Union is treated as like a 'test' of Marxism, but few other views have historically been subject to this schoolyard treatment via 'tests' and so on. People did not view Cromwell as a test for a society without a hereditary monarchy - indeed, this has caught on since. Marxism, on the other hand, has regressed notably due to the Soviet fall - Marxist organisations had shifted into practical organs of the Soviet state, and hence lost their connection to their theoretical groundings, which make Marxism what it is. Hence, they were left flailing for these afterwards, which led to a general dissolution. But this would seem a simple task requiring just to shift to a new focus, as approaches like Marxist humanism and explorations of the early Marx at least tried to realise. Marxism in general was unwilling to accept this, and so remained a cataclysm of vague phrases without theoretical direction. This treatment of the Soviet Union raises many issues, including how murderous Karl Marx is to be counted. There are other problems. How much of the blame is absolved Stalin and placed on 'Marxism'? In any case, the Soviet Union is treated as the particular case, and Marxism as the generality somehow underlying it and having an undefined effect on it. Marxism is hence reduced to an aesthetic behind the Soviet Union. This has partial validity - not only is Marxism usually just an aesthetic for Marxists, but the Soviet Union did generally treat Marxism as an aesthetic or drew on it extensively for this. In this, it usually found little resistance, and most Marxists were quite alright with giving in to it, apart from those condemned as 'dogmatic,' etc.

The few that remained elsewhere usually became highly reformist, to the point where even Cuba would be too much for them. A particular strength of the Soviets was militancy - they tried to set up and favour militant organisations like the Vietnamese, while Marxism itself usually had little focus on the militant form of organisation because they wanted organisations organised upon different lines. The militant is directly political in nature. As such, the flag of militant, resistant organisation was passed on instead to Islam.

The interaction of Soviet Union and Marxism can be treated as the failure of a movement usually considered 'Marxist.' So then one might consider it a revealing of certain aspects of Marxism. Of course, Marxism is not necessarily to be decided on with reference to the Soviet Union or such mere attempts at practical enaction, but by the validity of its theories and justifications. Only these can ultimately validate Marxism as opposed to other things, or in brief influence a rational creature (as humans are hoped to be) to adhere to an actual Marxism. If humans are often not of this kind, then it would seem to preclude Marxism's goal of participation in a human, rational society.  In any case, Marxism is also known for a fervent and oppositional belief, which one wit had the alacrity to compare to Satanism, but this is usually just reduced to a pious hope. In that sense, that Marxism then has more abrasive aspects must come across as a shock and seem to reveal 'aggressive' aspects seemingly in spite of themselves. This is a quandary of their own making. When it is drawn on clearly, as with The Hunger Games, it is probably an attempt to attack Marxist tendencies. This is treacherous.

When people oppose Marxism in this way, hence, they are thus drawn to speak of 'earth-shattering' revelations (not, of course, of the surprise that might come to a person who heard of Christianity from a typical modern 'Christian' and then turned to the book of Revelation which is a part of their apparent canon), or of deep pessimism. This shift of Marxism from pious, hardly obstructive ideal to something aggressive seems to portend all kinds of 'great' intellectual themes. Hence, if a person is a Marxist, their opponents are assumed to have an intellectual head-start of about a billion to infinity - they can just ask some 'concerning' question in the same room, and they are proclaimed highly intellectual. Marx themselves suffered similarly at the hands of economists, and hence economic Marxism was reduced to an apparent dead letter, with non-Soviet Marxists rarely being interested in it. People could merely heckle a Marxist, and they would seem intellectual. In general, then, this is a trap constrained to Marxism that can nonetheless perturb modern Marxists.

Views like Christianity and Marxism have a hard time returning, somewhat humorously, if they become obscure. They have too many 'unwelcome surprises' - if people can be made to accept Christianity as at least slightly benign, then there is too much of a threat that they can find something highly problematic about it and look elsewhere. And after all, what about the Church (with its Crusades and persecution, at that), Hell, Judgement, etc.? And the long-delayed kingdom of Heaven? Christianity hence cannot afford once it has shown itself to be once again a pariah, for it faces too much resistance. It can only survive by, as happened to Marxism in part in the Soviet Union, having its statements and symbols turned into ciphers for aspects of populace's lives or social structure, becoming in the process no more than idle symbols without their religious or political content. The kingdom of Heaven and related imagery? Well, it just relates, to many, to a promise of stability and social success for them, to the 'American Dream.' People accept Christians' misdemeanours, because they don't know if they're good Christians, but are quite willing for instance at funerals to proclaim them extraordinary Christians. People call Marxists idealistic dreamers, then they marry and do so twice as much. There is a certain sense of cognitive dissonance to all this. It isn't that they hold these two beliefs, it is that they do not or do not want to work on the level of beliefs. This presents a problem for these views considered authentically, because it is a tendency which separates things from them, but not for the vulgarised versions which capitalist society especially fostered, who would do all within their power to safeguard this vulgarisation. One could not combat this and escape their rebuke, clear in Christianity but often denied in Marxism.

A text cannot escape rebuke by being brief, where there is disagreement over the content. Where people do not take issue with the content, they will enjoy reading more things which favour this. If something is controversial and brief, it is usually going to have to be longer, or it will meet with immediate rebuke which it leaves things open for. If brevity is the question, what is going to get cut is the rejoinders - which is precisely what these people want, after Marxism has been proclaimed a dead letter. If their concern is not with the theory of Marxism, but their own enjoyment or such stimuli, then by identifying with this attack on a 'refuted' dead letter and getting texts which are just offering this treatment they can at least gain immediate and notable praise. Marxism is a notable source of it, as we have said - hence, it's always likely that many lurk around and participate there for this 'rush,' so to speak, with little concern for the theory and such. 'Marxist.' Marxist communities are hence quite reactionary, in a substantive sense.

In general, then, Christianity already has a difficult time surviving Christians, but survives by being something non-Christian, as Kierkegaard and others have observed. The Soviet Union was hence not a society subscribing to the tenets of Marxism. Nonetheless, it did attempt to place these Marxist tropes into the role of symbols, realising its images of usurpation, opposition to a social demographic and so on. It was hence a state which was itself plunged into opposition. In addition, it was a dictatorship, which nonetheless attempted to draw on a given system, which while this was limited still means that it could only subsist if based with personal rather than generic interaction with these tropes and images. Hence, the Soviet Union is not only an absorption of Marxism into symbols of the existent social system, but also its interaction with personal life if on a restricted scale. This means that it was in some ways an identification of Marxism with the nation or nationalism, and hence the formation of Marxism into a political agenda which integrated concrete realisation in the form of the nation and hence was directly political a demand, ideal or whatever. This is important - the Soviet state could not merely idly disseminate Marxist views which attacked them, but had to identify with these in some ways. As the Fates Warning song goes, 'I take a part of you, you take a part of me. [...] Searching for another chance to make us all one.'

In any case, people tend to take the Soviet Union as actually the general case, Marxism the particular to be gleaned from it. Marxism is hence subsumed totally by the Soviet Union, and by its leaders and populace. But this is clearly illusory if it is noted that Marx was minimally obscure - that this mass blaming or at times disregard of Marx based on this association with Soviet mass murder is hence without clear foundation. In any case, however, Soviet society was a situation where Marxism did subsist, in the form of its necessary interaction with the state. Marxism obviously lead to a dictatorship, because it disregards the political interests and hopes of people. It does not qualify these as real, and hence view them as 'zoon politikon,' as interested in the nature of the society around them being what they want it to be. It is in this sense a result of the atomized political views on the nineteenth century. It also lead to a frustrated dictatorship - of course, as this dictatorship was at the same time beholden to its themes of aggression and if you like the 'domestic violence' of state and Party. But did Marxism necessarily recommend its use in this manner? Was its use necessarily partial, disregarding by necessity in this context a large part of what Marx wrote about and tried to put forwards? In this sense, Marxism could hardly be given fitting application as the policy of a state based around the general division of labour, and specialization - an important part of the direction of 20th Century chess, for instance, although the Soviets did at least try to intervene in this politically and subordinate it to general issues. In this sense, the whole project of a 'Marxist' nation as there formulated was a problem, and its Marxism by necessity partial. This partial Marxism was nonetheless quite persistent, as it was found highly useful for those who wished to convert Marxism into a distinct career form in capitalist society, often dispensing with the Soviets after their fall to avoid the association with a fallen nation.

Marxism was hence an ideology proper to the early 1900s theme of a 'paranoid' dictatorship, which was an inevitable result of the human soon politikon increasingly encountering a society which moved almost at random and by laws created by humans but moving despite them. They hence represented an attempt to cohere society and keep it in human control, something both the Soviets and Nazis were explicit about. Hence, for instance, Hitler's sense of betrayal later on was major, and probably valid because the anti-capitalist trends of his Party and its anti-Semitism were things that could hardly go without notable resistance in a capitalist society. Such intrigues were essentially inevitable in higher places, it was just a question of where. Likewise, their army's motivation may have been lacking as they went on. Stalin was also known for their 'paranoia,' as a dictator, and indeed was harsh in his treatment of his Party members and people allegedly serving him. During this phase of things, Marxism hence had a direct relevance, but since then its relevance is quite different.

The Soviet Union is often portrayed as, to borrow a Kierkegaardian turn of phrase, 'extraordinarily Marxist.' This is in part because people are eager to see the Soviet state in contrast with another, 'better' one - hence, if it is Marxist, it is seen as 'really Marxist.' This was always likely to be the USA, because it is 'constitutional' and integrates intellectual labour into its state, it hence encapsulates the 'intellectual' pretenses of anti-Marxism, which would hence have Marxism be held of no intellectual account for its own part. Consider America as like a room, where capitalistic people reside, and Marxism as something 'outside' that. This is the only way that the Cold War can be portrayed as an 'ideological conflict,' without forcing random people to come to a judgement between these two elaborate views (Marxism, for instance) and what they have in common, differ on, how much of Marxist writing is valid, etc. Posing it as such, as is commonly done to promote the USA's cause, is not meant as putting everyone on the spot and saying that they can choose between these. This is not possible if it is honestly framed in these terms. Hence, what is actually meant is the physical separation of a place where normal people are, the USA, and a threat outside this - the Soviet Union. What are people doing in the USA? Free, 'nightclub' stuff, obviously, which is the popular image of that state as opposed to Soviet restriction - drinking alcohol, eating trash, having sex, occasionally while President (well it's the Land of the Free and they are there to keep asserting this, why wouldn't they then treat it as such?), taking drugs. That kind of thing. Hence, wherever such a situation exists, this opposition to the Soviets can be posed. This is a certain 'versatility' of capitalism. Because this opposition becomes a part of daily life, it is not easily overturned.

There is a certain dishonesty in posing politics in this way, but it is an attempt to make politics reducible to the sensuous, atomised experience of capitalist society. Politics there can only appear in the form of isolated impressions, and going beyond this tends towards socialism. Over-arching views like Nazism are only received as 'aesthetics,' although they at least are honest about this, but people do not wish to go further at the risk of 'alienating' the people around them. A Marxist cannot speak of 'alienation' from a personal stand-point, but only a theoretical one - otherwise, of course they would feel or be alienated, they are Marxists and wish to attack capitalist society. They're weird. In any case, the treatment of Soviet 'Marxism' is duplicitous, and stubborn in its duplicity - even if it is valid to note that uses of words like 'communist' here are misleading, people aren't talking about that, they're talking about keeping things out of a room. Dealing with this only as if it was a political discussion is fruitless if it is expected to go further, they would rather it was something like a counselling session. This can be unpleasant, as this is a highly isolated experience, and Marxism being subjected to it means that it inevitably seems obscure, and its aim at present far-off. Marxism, of course, exists as a political system continually after its formation, if an obscure one. It does not suddenly cease to be communist, etc., at a given time, and hence it can be freely interacted with.

Marxism continually undercuts its immediate appeal, as for instance with its criticism of the Proudhonist treatment of value, and hence blaming it for such eclectic uprisings can be problematic. It almost inevitably is replaced with Proudhonism, as Bordiga once noted.

The Soviet Union is restrictive. It tends to say 'no' to things, in popular terms, such as free enterprise, free choice of social systems, and other freedoms. Of course, communism must always be secured by some force, or we would merely create social multiplicity which allows for capitalism, and hence is not truly anti-capitalist. One can't rely on a constitution to do this, because they are famous objects of disregard. Hence, socialism without this reduces to a utopianism too mild to deserve the socialist name. Nonetheless, we must recall that capitalist society is one of need and fulfillment, where people are to continually seek and receive such things. To deny people this is anathema. Hence, capital's international watchword becomes the liberty which Paul famously condemned.

If Marxism is thus general, and the Soviet Union particular, why would Marxism be chained to the Soviet Union? There is plenty more to Marxism. But if we treat it in this way, then we prevent Marxism from being pinned down here, and hence many will disapprove of this. It is tantamount to supporting Marxism, if while giving this limited expression. In general, this view of Marxism reduces it to a threat to society and something which is a general hindrance. Marxist adherence to certain positions and opposition obstructs the harmonic society. Of course, Marxists are not considering Marxism for the sake of their own position in capitalist society or so on. Besides, they want to get rid of it. As such, it is generally safe to present Marxism as general, if this is honest, and then it tends to display favourably compared to the others in general. However, when this is not it is merely an image or aesthetic, that the Soviet Union can do as well as anything.

De Leonism and What's Left

For Daniel De Leon, socialists were the most advanced part of the society considered as a stratum. They could come into conflict with other workers, as De Leon did both in academia (ideological labour is still labour), and in the various unions of the time. Conflicts between unions were common at the time, and many defected from major unions due to dissatisfaction with among other things their rejection of politics and political discussion. It stood to reason that these highly reactionary elements of unions would see opposition. Unlike has often been alleged, Daniel De Leon identified with the more radical trend in popular politics, they did not only attack the unions in the abstract. Unions, obviously, are official and at least pseudo-political organisations, as the Labour Party was, and hence were subject to rebuke. This was especially likely because they are organs of negotiation. No doubt some would support Tony Blair for being head of the 'Labour Party' and having British labour's support.

They tried to take unions seriously as organs of political action. Hence, so far as they are concerned, IOC unions were to be a united force for a united struggle, they would also have to unite. This seems straightforward, if unions are to be of worth in such a context. However, the problem is that the division of labour which applies generally and which  the workers adhere to,  is set by the capitalists and must still apply in practice to workers' organisations. Hence, the unity of these unions is merely abstract, while in practical terms the capitalists are allowed to determine the nature of the union. Hence, even these, as in the IWW, took a reactionary and harmful turn, and rejected De Leon then only to accept Noam Chomsky now. The IWW right now is less a union than a divorce. The SLP are still humbly proclaiming themselves a Party, and as the song says, 'Best-laid plans sometimes are just a one night stand.'

This issue, of course, applies just as much to other unions, but in an inverted manner. Their division and hence form is dictated by capitalists, in a more direct sense, and they are cursed to wander like Ahasuerus where the capitalist leads. They are hence in many ways at the mercy of this class. The merit of the industrial union is that its if abstract union at least posits a socialist element, or the socialist hope, while the others do not do so in their organisation. The problem with this is that they tend to assume some form of 'socialism,' in whatever sense, is already in application, because they want this element to be applied without hindrance. It can only do this if labour is already carried out on this principle on a social level. This is not yet the case. But nonetheless it is the most fervent attempt to give unions or organisations of struggle a form making it of use to the socialist movement.

Daniel De Leon did oppose many socialists, but mostly for their retreats from socialism, not for socialism itself. If they saw problems arising, it was not from socialism itself. Hence, a firm adherence to this was not to be attacked. Only after one adheres to something can one go on to the other details. It would be strange, of course, to reprove people for being socialists and hence as De Leon said seeing the struggle through to its end, hence realising the terms and direction. They were hardly in a position to treat 'socialists' as the problem. Few people are attacked this much for their advancement in a given field, apart from priests. Many leftists would prefer a zone freed from 'meddling' leftists, or in brief one encouraged to be reactionary. If they were honest, they too would take as their slogan, 'No politics in the union,' and for their flag Gompersism.

De Leon, of course, wrote many works, and few have read over them. That would require patience, as the central points are often diffuse. It is not a topic of study. Hence, it need be no surprise that most of what we are told about De Leon's history is merely fabricated or sentimental, as with Irving Stone's stories about the oppression of Eugene Debs by the cruel De Leon. If De Leon were a more contemporary figure, their biographies would accuse them of cyber-bullying Jill Stein, no doubt. They are hence a historical object of wanton vilification - if they have to be mentioned at all. This might seem harsh. They died at around the time of the World Wars, of course, and the German side after World War I was highly demonised as a particular nation for their actions, to the point of seeking reprisal. In that sense, they might have just chosen the right time for it. In any case, they arose before the subsumption of the international communist movement by Soviet Russia, and hence their stern independence might seem a fitting reaction to the times.

De Leonite politics has often led to conflict, and responds to conflicts between various facets of society. It attempts to unify in a partisan manner against the forces opposed to it. However, the field of unionism was, peculiarly, not found a fitting location for this. De Leonism hence holds to underlying modes of social, partisan unity, against other elements. It thus can seem abrasive and strict. Nonetheless, apart from the particular forms advocated, De Leonism has the fortitude to stay outside these, by drawing on its firm adherence to socialism as such. Hence, its views summarised in terms of general traits have a long-lasting validity.

On The Organisation of Nations in War

In times of present but limited war, especially, it was necessary to calm people and remind them that daily life was to be continued as in other states - to an extent. You could not merely start anew after the war, with people unused to acting in this manner. A long, involved war would get rid of a nation attempting this, who instead requires war to be waged quickly if it is to survive. A situation of passive, lengthened war would generally also lead to alterations that aren't easily revoked, or the necessity of attacking anything else that might seem objectionable.
In general, this repurposing in times of war is especially pronounced when it surrounds war work and the possibility of being used as soldiers. Hence, others - separated from this - were generally necessary if a nation was to survive a war while retaining some explicit continuity, and this would be produced inevitably on the event of a war. In this sense, war was a central event in the life of nations, and of course a nation which was easily attacked would likely be threatened.

However, alongside this, there was also the necessity of keeping continuity elsewhere. In this, states like the USA which were separated from others generally had an advantage, at the expense of being press-ganged into a pattern of continual war which they could not escape. In this sense their interventions since then have been a necessary continuation of their actions in the world wars, and the dynamic shift in this.

In general, over time most of the Western nations - including Russia - have been caught up in this process of continual war. They will not, of course, attack things which they like much - like most of these other Western nations. Of course, for this pattern to be incorporated into a nation generally requires that the people being repurposed assent to it, and hence generally requires support from populist factions in the nation. Hence, nations like Britain only more recently fully committed to this direction, nonetheless this required help from the USA and subservience to their 'conservative' Presidency, which they had to have close relations with and whose view on them was in a sense much more important than that of the British politicians. Britain could not actually form an independent politics, despite its own illusions.

In general, then, there are various areas of a nation that participate in a war. As such, when a nation is attacked, the need will come for these to be detached from the war somehow - this applies for instance to people functioning for the war effort, and in general those where the continuity is highly uncertain. This detached form is unlikely to threaten the rest of the nations, who respond aggressively, or it is ultimately forced into co-operation. 'Rebellious' communities which decry their being attacked by others rather than left there are quite hypocritical - they are effectively declaring a fight against these nations, on some level and perhaps a limited one, and hence of course likely to be attacked and possibly taken out. The overall result of this is that temporary formations which are detached from the nation generally are necessary if it is to be kept on track with the overall system, and shelter it from war. These will generally remain within one nation or other, but if the war comes too close or they are caught in the 'heart of the storm' or the centre of this dynamic, then they will generally detach from both of these to some extent, and try to form isolated communities to assure people of this continuity. This will generally be more likely to occur when the war is milder in nature, or this continuity can be easily drawn upon.

In general, then, nations which are in notable war or caught up in the process are likely to be victimised by elements within them, elements which however will not relate offensively to the others or which are not really 'revolutionary' - sometimes even in intent. Of course, these forces are either not interested in the nation, or take on a 'nationalised' form - in which case their conscious formation around a lack of wartime 'patriotism,' despite their attempting to take on this 'patriotic' or national form, presages their undoing. Such patriotism must in the future be manufactured in a highly artificial manner, so far as such conditions are concerned. However, generally, these break-away elements cannot easily be integrated with the rest of the nation, as this is not their function: it presupposes some opposition between them and the nation, somewhat in spite of itself, which is still to be worked out, and might take the form of their repression until the nation can return to functioning. However, if the nation allies too easily with 'normal' foreign elements, it will undermine its own position in this return to functioning.

However, ultimately this tendency among the nation did not serve to improve it, and sometimes turned against its war effort. This lack of commitment could be fatal. Sometimes, the state would be forced to clear them away, in order to resume its nationhood as something separate and fortified. In addition, because these elements took place at around the point where people might hope to gain entrance to official roles or elsewhere, they could easily forestall any mobility in the state, which it then had to make up for somehow through the replacement of its officials. This tendency, separating itself from the nation's war effort in order to maintain continuity, was one which did not cling to a definite tendency or doctrine. However, it was ultimately characterised by its finitude and hypothetical nature - it was attempting to keep continuity with some hypothetical ending of the war, when it would flow back into the rest of society - and hence was in itself weak and indefinite. In Russia, for instance, this tendency had decisively entered the nation by the time of Tsar Nicholas II, where coronation events could easily turn into stampedes for food, and in general required exposure and addressing. By the time this tendency had overrun a nation on its own part, if such were possible, it would in all likelihood have lost a war - and a nation so divided will either see one side fall, or both. Hence, in general, such nations as were in major war - something quite common in the 19th Century, and taking a significant part in the early 20th Century, but then more sparse and partial as time went by - led to certain functions in them which were realised in accordance with the stage of the war. These could have notable political consequences, but were always in a sense subordinate.

The Organisation of Capitalist Politics

Capitalist politicians are subjected, like all other jobs, to the market. As such, along with capital, they are put into subjection to the people in general, of any tendency. As in the market, they count each voter the same, and the more people pay the price, the more they get paid. Hence, capitalist society in general is organised democratically, across its length - demands pertaining to democracy by itself will not go beyond reformist hopes. However, this also opens up other strictures or dynamics in the political scene.

Firstly, this leads to a necessary populistic trend in politicians of any country. In a sense, the more open the market in a country, the stronger this populistic tendency. However, this trend is highly eclectic and distracts from each nation's particular role in the world economy - hence, it forms a somewhat necessary exhaust in the form of states like Cuba or Bolivia. The US do take some umbrage at these nations, but because their own politicians are in a sense just as subject to populistic trends, that these trends are given some form of expression among the 'league of nations' is found necessary.

Secondly, there is conflict in the political sphere not only between political tendencies - which, so far as they exist in favour of capital, serve the same masters and hence have only trivial distinctions - but also between the political itself and the position of politics as a job where the politician must be subject to every popular whim. Authors and other such ideological functions of capital will generally tend in favour of the latter - they will attempt to steer politics into the form they are familiar with. However, when political movements occur, politicians are forced to adjust to this new political landscape, and hence to prioritise the political on some perhaps limited level. This will usually be met with resistance, as is noticeable in the case of the Labour Party under Corbyn. Nonetheless, this struggle against market intrusions in politics is in a sense the most important duty for politicians under capital, who are otherwise subject to the same forces and ultimately to the economy.

In general, the political realm tends towards the stricter ideas or the hints of them in politics. American politics is often quite hollow in this - many seemingly 'strict' ideas are merely quibbles over words. In British politics, while Corbyn's supporters have raised several highly strict views, they are expected to not only be pleased with but welcome people who have opposed them for months to years to the helm of the Party, and then aid them in propagandising against themselves. This is a highly absurd situation that could not be reached without many concessions. It nonetheless has many of the characteristics of a farce, primarily on the part of the 'Labour Right,' whose essential purpose is to attack even any mention of socialism. As such, it is not a surprise that, in dealing with them, their opponents are attacked as 'unspeakably extreme,' anti-Semitic (a buzz-word used to avoid discussing politics), and so on - as opposed to the 'Labour Party,' which you could hardly recognise as the Party which has contained highly leftist gestures in its campaigning for quite some time. If socialism itself is treated as a 'bad word,' and a movement organised against this, then over time it becomes a slur, like anti-feminism or anti-Semitism, that can usually be dismissed as exploitation of a word for effect. Ultimately, Jeremy Corbyn's supporters as their aims stand only have impetus reasonably to either stay in the Party and campaign for their views, or to be shouted down and leave rather than campaigning against themselves. Otherwise, the Party increasingly refuses to take a political stand on the state - but this is not a problem to the opponents of Corbyn's movement, who often have no concern for politics and merely view it as a target for incursions of the market.

It is to be noted that politicians are aware of the general concept of vested interests. This is the means by which people whose fundamental concern is the market can get an 'in' in politics, by pretending to lack vested interests such that their comments inhabit some sort of fairy 'political' realm. Hence, for instance, they will pretend that their call for a pro-business agenda isn't a result of their present affiliation with these and present identification of their interests with business - it hence becomes a pseudo-political thing. This is, however, merely a question of demographic manipulation rather than political views as such - in order to off-set their appearance of vested interests, they will claim allegiance to charity or some other impoverished sector of society - albeit only nominal - in order to thus appear 'political,' and hence will be plunged into posturing. In general, if they are forced into personal conflict, they will come off looking bad, as it disarms them, but they might be defended or have their image white-washed due to vested interests in the reporting as well - which inevitably gets in where business was in charge of these things. Hence, in politics, there were many who so to speak took a 'back-door,' who were only 'political' or considered politically for politically illegitimate reasons. While their fundamental agenda was to preserve market incursions on politics and hence the laws of the market, as well as politics' inferiority to the market, this mostly personal agenda was given a seemingly political form by drawing on a different demographic, of whatever kind. Politics was merely a name given to the obscuring of a person, and was hence subordinated to the market. This is important to grasp in referring to how precisely this actual hierarchy functioned, or how political actors could assimilate this superiority of the market into political terms.

In general, capital was organised in such a way that the political was integrated into the economic, and could not escape. In this context, who was to quibble over whether politicians were 'corrupt'? If it's a job, under capital, it's corrupt. In any case, however, resistance to this in the political sphere or the realm of government over society was always present, in the circumstances. The general circumstance was that due to the general reduction of people to voters or to money by abstract labour, conflicting views necessarily appeared or were opposed to each other, and yet had to be treated as somehow uniform at the expense of abstracting from their inherent nature. This force of artificial uniformity of various forms may be called capital, and obviously had a certain bias against ideas which were more concrete in nature, found certain things more evil than others. In any case, the general struggle in the political sphere was one which could not under capitalism be kept within one state, where in general too many demands and atomised political careers existed in one state for it to form any form of political coherence or coherent existence in a nation, and this kept these politicians in place, such that they had to be exported partially to other nations in order to keep some limited sense of national differentiation. Outside that, political forces which could not be fit elsewhere would necessarily take state form, a weakness of this multifarious political form. In general, politics in this situation was for most participants about the atomised economic actor, and traits of theirs which could be abstracted, and hence was ultimately an identity politics centred around the traits which, as an atomised and economic, or physical, entity, they have. For the most part, politics structured around the abstract actor in whichever guise ultimately had to attack any opposed forces as incoherent if it was to be maintained at all, because it could not deal with them concretely without drawing on random, brief phrases which ultimately amounted to the same thing.

On Genre: Details

Genre is a matter of taking sounds and fitting them into a certain pattern. They don't admit people who stay outside of this.
People who don't might just fit into 'progressive' or 'country' niches.
Hence, genres subordinate sounds to a certain pattern or sound.
A work which remains in one genre is by nature partial, as it excludes other sounds and their meaning.
Some genres may be excluded as illegitimate, but few posit only one legitimate genre. Genres are types, not inherently views.
Genres hence presuppose sounds to be subordinated or arranged. These must exist outside of the genre.
These are independent pieces of music, not actually raw materials. They must be their own sounds, which can then be used, if their aim were to be genre music then they could not attain this because their whole point is to form music without this formation into patterns. If their direction were these patterns, they could not be formed.
This non-genre music should generally be looked at as the basis for the formation of every genre.
Genre is generally an early question when music is to be made. If it is made without genre, then it is in a progressive or obscure country niche. Hence, this is not how most music is made.
The two general, and opposed, directions of music, are: progressive music, or music which is sounds without a clear harness, and pop music, which merely subjugates sounds to the will of others or divests it of its internal existence, which is music made without concern for the musical content. Between these lies genre music, which modifies sounds instead by patterns, along with whatever else. Progressive music, however, can still have pop tendencies, especially if it is to be used for such: these, however, are not merely musical, but social resonances or a question of the musician's relation to social institutions like pop music filtering into the music. The pop music elements must enter in pseudo-organically, or through the musician's experience of that genre.
Politics has several different 'genres,' or aesthetics. Liberalism is not a political theory, generally, but an aesthetic. Of course, even being based on theoretical works need not make something a political theory, as this requires that the political view be thoroughly integrated into this, but it is at least an attempt.
From where does politics derive? Ultimately, from people's interaction with the society they are in, at whatever level and in whatever institutional context is offered. This forms so to speak the raw material of politics. Political 'genres' merely subjugate this to a certain 'sound,' as it were.
It is only political because they are in some way distanced from this society. This also includes its political forces. Hence, political 'genres' are all in a sense hollow. There are no tribes, there are only different people.
Politics in a sense creates an isolated realm, however, where this division does not exist in usual conduct. Politics implies an overall perspective on this society, and not just being a part of it of whichever kind, and hence requires this isolation. However, elsewhere these people do not have an automatic immunity from interaction with people who are not 'political' as such, and hence could face a more hostile atmosphere.
As all political genres are in a sense united, and also in a sense detached from the political, the suggestion arises of a way of evading these. They are all possibly hostile - if devoid of course of their general dynamic which means that they have some elements which relate positively to the political - to all political actors.
When the political is directly welded to the politics of genre, to form a new political current alongside the others, it will generally be inconsistent. Nonetheless, it will generally appear as some sort of 'third way,' but is really just a form of politics identified with a person, which they allow to be diluted into the politics of some current and Party.
Political currents diverge due to demands from the world from their 'founders.' This applies in essence and in specific points. Those which are named after a person should therefore not be assumed to have any correspondence to them.
However, this eventually congeals into systematic, promulgated divergence, or continual disagreement with these people. In general, then, as indifference to their own claimed political beliefs, which indifference is made programmatic. People interacting with this political belief therefore need some sort of excuse as to why these people are so indifferent to their own views. As providing these excuses would involve more honest political polemic against the current than its own people are usually able to provide, the task of furnishing these excuses is given to people of some other current, who then are listed as their official 'nemeses.'
Hence, opponents of Marxism contain those who oppose it on principle, and another current which merely claim some distance from it - those who claim disenfranchisement after the fall of Russia, for instance, or which merely claim that some aspect of it will be difficult. These are often inconsistent - they take Marxism and a Marxist perspective for granted in some way, and then seek to oppose it, as they are ultimately merely external elements forced into detailed engagement with it of some, albeit highly qualified form, and hence closer to it than most Marxists, and trying to weasel their way out of this to discourse with Marxists. Hence, what they tend to come out with from there is highly simplified, because it is merely an attempt at an excuse for others.
The presentation of Das Kapital is in a sense inherently likely to be knocked down - it has the generosity to look at their system and present it as a general existent, and yet they are left free to just clean a couple of stains and then seem free of Marxism. Hence, the modus operandi of just taking slight issue with small things in the hopes of taking down the whole Marxist system has a sanction within Marxism.
In a way, Marxists will join in on this when they need to dilute Marxism by swathing it in their uncertainty so that they can use it for whatever they are doing, but this is derived from currents who stand apart from it and can as such do this unremittingly. They hence rely on these currents to allow them to twist Marxism to suit their own ends - and when texts are clearly presented, diverging from them casually and without reference to it would usually be difficult - and hence these currents are in a sense merely performing the double service of a) providing excuses for divergence, b) providing means for further divergence. This is important in grasping why often irrelevant currents come to take on a seeming importance in these political circles which is more than their fairly meagre divergences would seem to suggest.
If these currents interact in detail with Marxism, their popularity is unlikely to be major - the general operation of the system can't allow for continually considering such problems it might perhaps have. However, this implies that while they will take issue with such small aspects of Marxism, their affinity with Marx on more notable issues of sociology and so on was more notable than that of most Marxists. This is required for the sustained engagement with Marxism. Hence, they are notably inconsistent, mostly, and often need to twist definitions of Marxism in order to have this function at all - as such, they can usually be disputed with on this basis first and foremost. Nonetheless, if amongst this noise made about something quite different their objections seem relevant to Marxism, despite being objections to something else, in all likelihood Marxism guided them there itself.
Hence, someone who took objections with Marxism from saying for instance that Das Kapital didn't list every commodity existing at the time, from which it made derivations, or that Kapitalizmus didn't actually involve capitalist mice, would generally remain quite immune to it or would be unlikely to be convinced by it. These examples are somewhat facetious, nonetheless they are accurate. The problem with these is that they cannot safely assimilate Marxist imagery and dialogue, and hence are so to speak cut off from many things expected of people. Most politicians or citizens generally tended to assimilate Marxist imagery of unity, etc., easily, and hence could all easily pretend that there was no threat from this external force. Still, this method was generally appropriate to dissuade Marxism, .
However, the problem is that Marxist critiques of capital are also generally partial in this manner. For instance, it takes up Proudhonist critiques, but jettisons the adherence to the law of value as the strict principle of criticism, and likewise takes up some criticism of conditions of capitalism or with its formation which does not draw on its fundamental traits or contrast this with those it wished to establish. It often merely alludes to a problem, or throws out imagery suggesting a problem, but does not go beyond this. In this sense, Marxism is ultimately identical to this opposing force, and raises the same issues, often quite explicitly. They are hence found in identity, as with the Soviet Union, Britain and the USA, standing only against this stream of disparaged and disliked imagery. The Soviet Union was, however, forced into fairly strict opposition to these, which in a way Marxism did not prepare for - it was still quite passive and not that strict or oppositional. Hence, the Soviet Union had to draw on a different force.
The Soviet Union knew that it would have to engage in serious opposition in some form early on in order to form any kind of state, but Marxists were often sensitive to this especially because it was so important to their critique of capitalism that it did this - hence it found itself abandoned from the off by Marxism as such, and had to look elsewhere. Many Marxists had been urged to just look at this section, the one that would condemn any new 'Marxist' state or nation, etc. Nonetheless, it still had a nominal adherence to Marxism, which didn't differentiate it from Marxism generally.
While politics proper is substance, genre is in essence form. Genres of politics, like liberalism, are so to speak only so many experiences for those who interact with them, or a template for viewer interaction with them. Hence, they can as it were be generated automatically when viewers interact with them. You might hence wish to avoid them. Otherwise, they can spin out in defiance of the political and the viewer, as an independent community that will soon turn against them.
Liberalism is capital's attempt to appeal to people's emotions, while conservatism knowingly presents a harsher face although it can also pander to them. Hence, more 'major' conservative politicians historically have, in recent times, generally existed in either a Cold War scenario, where they can be contrasted with the Soviet Union to the point where liberalism and conservatism were essentially identical, or through appealing to liberal but apolitical aesthetics like 'feminism,' as occurred in part in Britain. Others have only emerged in more recent times, and are known for expressing in part the disdain of the organic political realm for liberalism. These elements have hence faced much opposition in the Republican Party, and eventually been derided and knocked aside in the form of Ted Cruz, etc. Britain was a thoroughly liberal state which had little political life, compared to the USA. They were hence leaning on the USA. The more liberalism allows for money to signify various additional activities which can be carried out freely, the more capital has an incentive to invest in money as such rather than consumption of particular things - however, the more that capital consumes, the more it tends back towards liberalism. Money, though it might not mind hemming in conservatives, ultimately does not wish to continue going up to them - with all of its possibilities open - and saying, 'hit me.'
The Soviet Union gained a modicum of stability as a force of opposition by not going in a liberal direction primarily. This is important, as otherwise it would have easily collapsed into this comfortable liberalism and fallen into a regular capitalist state. Instead it remained somewhat disciplined and distant from these, rather than just allowing for them and falling into line immediately.
Religion deals, instead of with a specific group of people, with a generic mass of them. It is hence often more vague than politics. Nonetheless, it does attempt to look towards a certain group or type, which is exalted, and in this it can overlap with the political. When it is too distant from a political view, as in most Christianity, it tends to reduce to a merely nominal 'religion' where nobody can cast aspersions on the religion of others so long as they call themselves a 'Christian,' which ultimately renders it meaningless.
As said, genres tend to derive from organic music of some kind, which generally makes it recognisable. The opening of Paramore's 'Misery Business,' indeed a miserable track, resembles Alder-era Fates Warning if they were rather awful. Curiously, it sounds somewhat akin to 'Parallels,' which is aptly named in this sense.  Admittedly, earlier tracks like 'Silent Cries' are seemingly sidetracked by this kind of thing. Likewise, 'The Road Goes on Forever' is based on a similar theme and vocal sound to Blue's 'Breathe Easy.' However, these are all made uniform by genre, which trivialises any worth of the original sound, usually.
Genre music has a limited number of possibilities. If music weren't an established thing, you couldn't have pop music - hence, genre music has to be produced so to speak arbtrarily. However, pop music cannot generally risk basing its claims for appeal on putting itself above these other forms of music or vaunting about being different and not as abrasive, because this risks cutting out this ground beneath it. Bands that do this often will tend to rely on an image which revolves comparatively less around musical factors, as occurs with bands like Paramore or occasional transitions between acting (usually for children) and music. Seemingly people think it apt that pop music and children's films be closely associated.
Often, genres will tend to run into each other. To differentiate, they will hence need to be highly one-track, or keep to one very particular sound in order to remain even seemingly distinct. This applies to many sub-genres and smaller, similar genres. The problem is that many bands within these will vary from the other form of music only as much as one form of track, like an anthem, will vary from another form of track, like a ballad or interlude, on another band's album.
Christianity generally latches itself onto other things, like musical genres or reality TV shows, and pretends to be a different type of them. Of course, it is not so just because they enter the genre. A 'Christian' reality TV show like Duck Dynasty is just an ordinary reality TV show assimilating religious themes. There is unlikely to be any serious interaction with religious themes. It hence requires some pseudo-conservative sentiments, which are however tamed and damped-down by interacting with the show, but also Sadie Robertsons and the like to dilute the show generally. Obviously, 'Keeping Up With the Kardashians' violates many religious tenets or at least sensibilities, and hence requires some form of 'religious' reality TV show to arise at some point to excuse this active flouting of religious and most other standards. Christianity is beholden to the same standards as most other genres, who are filled with religious people whose music will hence inevitably reflect their religious views if these are notable at all. Of course, if actual Christians made music in such contexts, they would come into conflict with Christian bands and listeners generally, who would like their Christianity diluted at this point and would not appreciate attempts to disturb their pseudo-Christian harmony by asserting early Christian strictness.
Other religions, like Islam or Sikhism, are more rarely associated with this use. Islam is a political religion, and hence can look at this world 'with sober senses' and without having to set up 'genres' of each form of music to interact with it - it can also be far more critical of them, because it does not simply colonise each of them.
The category of 'musical genre' is ultimately a highly limiting one, because it does not describe the organic content of the music. Nonetheless, it is how art is categorised. Any further categorisation requires drawing on other realms, and is not found merely within art.
Political genre is in many ways reducible to art or to hollow 'banners and sounds,' but nonetheless contains some interaction with the political or is not merely restricted to the artistic. Nonetheless, it is at a distance from the political as such, and hence ultimately reduces to a foreign intrusion into politics. In this sense, while artistic genre at least expresses an aspect of art, politics cannot be treated in the same way without being cheapened. Popular politics was no more of interest than the Teen Choice Awards.
Genres like Alternative were substantial entities, like 'nu metal' in a way, nonetheless they were mostly defined with reference to the listener's experience and associations with it, rather than being musically wholly cut off from popular rock tendencies. This was nonetheless distorted to the point of being a different genre, but this was in a sense more a template for listeners than otherwise. In this, it filled a certain niche which was not specifically musical in nature, though it was aesthetic - it took the tropes of popular music, etc., and then distorted them to fit a mood more of depression, lowliness and sadness. In the process, their musical tendencies were distorted to something quite different, nonetheless despite trying to cut itself off it never went further than attempting to do so, it was not really cut off from popular music per se.
This sort of distorting niche is something which tends to arise at certain points in time, in various forms. In general, it is merely a single motion irrespective of the specifically artistic form and revolving instead around moods and social situations (or isolation), and hence this niche could usually only be filled once in terms of pop cultural or political categories. It takes the form of a genre.
This form of music, etc., exists to accommodate situations where the popular forms of music are played, but the situation and such does not at all suit this. The resulting distortions are hence set down as a genre.
There are similar political tendencies, which can take on the same characteristics as normal politics, but then play them back from a different location in a similar way. While ultimately quite similar, they nonetheless will tend to be an available niche. However, when they are active, they will obstruct the progress of alternative music, and so on. If they are active, they generally imply sources which are more radical than them, as well as situations, which hence interact with things from a position further than merely distorting them. Generally, these are less radical than Alt in terms of interaction with the world around them or the perspective implied on them, but nonetheless imply some sort of difference in this somewhere or they would not arise. In general, this niche can only be filled by one field, but that can be aesthetic, political, or otherwise.
Fields can hence at times distort into other things, and in a sense these other fields are then created to accommodate these distortions. Hence, there are many genres of things which involve a lot of display and processing rather than actual focus, because they don't have much point.
In politics, for people to be said to be charismatic or to have a 'way with words' essentially implies as the latter term explicitly acknowledges that they take words from elsewhere and put them together in an artificial and inorganic way. If they were saying something of political substance that they understood, they would not have a 'way with words,' as they would not be manipulating words from elsewhere into a pattern. This can easily be seen instead, if they attempt to put forward any real politics, as awkwardly trying to shout out things that they 'read somewhere,' taking credit for them in some underhanded way, and hence they would be both awkward and called out on it. This would not be seen as a 'way with words.' Instead, they would have to be saying little of political substance, and hence could not have a consistent and focussed opposition, rather merely taking words already accepted and spewing them out. They hence attempt to take some political genre, such as socialism or and then further subjugate it to genre, which however is not in actuality possible. These figures are accommodated by the pseudo-genre of identity politics as well as, in a limited way, liberalism, and hence tend towards these. Generally, they can be associated with some such identity political trend.
A form of politics was usually not defined primarily by its relation to identity politics, but elsewise, by political criteria. This is the only accurate way of considering matters. Identity politics is a matter of identifying with a certain demographic, as if this matters. It obscures the person and their politics. Nonetheless, often political genres could co-exist with identity politics in particular authors, who would in a sense attempt to differentiate themselves by their own aesthetic, which results from this occasional interruption of identity political elements. This hence takes the political genre they have subjugated the content to, and further distorts it into something they can claim their own. However, this is misleading, as political genre is inherently a distortion of the organic and individualised categories of organic political material, into something which obscures this, and hence at this point they have moved away from individuality rather than towards it.
If a political system or form of beliefs encompasses all of these levels of politics - having elements of the organic, elements of genre, and elements of identity politics - then it will in all likelihood involve dual authorship, but nonetheless can be taken quite far in almost any direction, and can be taken more or less in the same direction so far as substance is concerned as can any other political system which involves these three levels. This is limited, somewhat strictly in a way, by the identity politics aspect, which while it might seem accessible creates a certain barrier to any individual attempting to take this form of politics further, and ultimately is merely a restriction to be left behind and which otherwise limits how far this new direction can be taken. Certain communities sympathetic to these ideas may be more or less exclusive, at a given time period. This hence means that all of these forms - those which involve all three levels - can be taken in similar directions, but with different phrasing.
As the levels are in some ways inimical, dual authorship is necessary to these forms, in various ways.
Reality TV shows are a question of taking some form of situation that the audience is used to, and then forming it into a genre. It hence represents the category of genre quite well. Genre texts usually rest on the impact of such sections. Reality TV shows are all about imposed patterns. If they need to impose patterns over Christianity to sell it as a reality TV product, then they will do that, which is a tendency at odds with the religion. Likewise, the use of pop music alongside politics will generally overshadow it, unless the politicians are accepted as essentially conduits of this industry and what it represents, as a mode of politics whose only distinction is selling it. As conservatism is too strict for its politics to be 'sold' in the usual mode, unless they are also sacrificed in the process, this will usually tend towards liberalism.
In general, genre hence relies on musical content, but in some ways departs from it. As such, genres of it like 'pop music,' which are only distinguished as pseudo-genres by their departure being to attempt to subjugate this musical content wholly to others, will ultimately end up unstable or subjugated to these content. This, however, relies on the specific nature of the content, of whichever sort. In general, politics is an ethical pursuit, and hence you should not expect actual political content to be accessible to people, or understood, regardless of this. The point is not that the reader can claim to something just because they have claimed to read the text, but that their reading of it and what they can understand so far is important - otherwise, you have the general situation where a text is merely a means for others to steal credibility. A person's credibility is their own. In any case, certain political tendencies are highly vulnerable, and will generally meet with immediate objections, so you don't want these people to be able to claim also to have read it and be able to dismiss a whole form of politics because of it. While Platforms and such are generally immune to this because they speak on behalf of some Party rather than on behalf of a specific politics, they are not always so if they claim to any more than this. As such, political works without genre would usually exist in interaction and not merely serve people up instant gratification as if the politics were some form of drug injection, and hence would appear quite difficult to read comparatively.