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.

Puritans in the USA

The Puritans were a facet of US society, if we may call it that retroactively, that quickly gave way and often in modern musical parlance 'sold out' in favour of more open religions. Nonetheless, they have a symbolic reference in the USA - the modern USA was in a sense constructed as against the Puritans, and many of its images are quite empty and only have impact due to being contrasted to something considered 'more objectionable.' A state identity which is based only on feeling slightly less of something than another, is one which resembled this USA: highly dynamic or contested politically, if only in appearance, and at the same time reliant on posturing and perhaps expansionism to remain in this mode. In lieu of strict adherence to anything, this America has only a lack of political strictness as a state - to allow for the economy to run freely, and interact with the people freely on the market - compared to for instance dictatorial nations, and a place which only seems 'better' than other places and by itself is a void without determinate character. It was hence inevitable that capital would eventually gravitate towards the centrality of such a democratic state with such emphases, and just as much that dictatorial states trying to keep up would have to turn increasingly to anti-capitalist ideas of the time, with whatever results.

But the Puritans have a reputation which could be misleading. Many nations, indeed most of the major ones, have a tradition of earlier communities and ideas which are branded in much the same ways as Puritanism: strictly governed, 'prudish,' strict about adultery (although marital vows are still quite 'strict' about forbidding this - if people want society to marry them, why do they want it to pretend that it never did this and what it says means nothing?), religious, handing out punishment easily, and so on. In this sense, the Puritans merely represented, and in a sense constructed, an image of earlier communities regularly attacked in many nations from India to Britain.

However, if nations are able to use this as against things like the USSR, and indeed all threats that come against it, to make it its watchword of sorts as a bastion against new political threats, then it is clear that what is feared about the Puritans is actually whatever they might represent about a future society, albeit to a limited extent and on a past basis. Hence, pointing out that the Puritans were attempting to cleave to tradition is a double-edged sword - it still leaves the persistent threat of the Puritans in stark display, and hence may be taken as threatening. America has over the years smeared its enemies almost mechanically with the same epithets, and expected to derive enthusiasm from this - whether they were the Nazis, the Soviet Union, the Middle Eastern nations, and if perhaps they were aliens, the same old line would be drawn out. This is deceptive longevity: it ultimately derives its seeming enthusiasm from saying to its people, 'go on with whatever you are doing, and we will support this as a state' - a rather embarrassing juxtaposition, given the cultural traits its people are renowned for - or in brief because of people's interest in their own temporary pleasures and interests, and the seeming renewal provided by this which is actually irrelevant to the political statement itself, but as soon as the statement and propaganda is put into stark relief as a political statement it becomes empty. It is in a sense a mere mirage. Politically, it does not appear substantial - cynicism about America ran rampant elsewhere. It in a sense requires the increasing subjection of political to 'economic,' of the overall social regulation to anyone's lives and actions, and this to ever-heightening levels.

Nonetheless, if the Puritans express something common to most nations' official histories, why are they here concentrated or codifying this in one society? In a sense, they are constructing the history of a major nation, a nation which would be central to the world system, if primarily despite themselves. They are contributors to this new nation. To claim a direct implantation of a 'Puritan work ethic' on American society would be misleading: to 'work for God' and to 'work for money' are highly different things and highly different ideological statements. Even when it is used loosely, to refer to 'strict work which isn't enjoyable,' Americans are not expected to work except because it has 'enjoyment' attached in the form of money, which is quite different. In a way, the Puritans had their work and society expropriated and twisted into something wholly opposed to their intent, something which America in its identity felt quite comfortable positioning itself against continually and leaning on to define their nation by inversion. The USA could very much promote its whole populace - but it couldn't for all of its 'pluralism' do anything else but rail against the Puritans. It hence in a sense dug its own grave - it couldn't go beyond the 'Cold War,' and always had some conflict over positions in the Middle East, because trying to take a firm hold would reduce it to the robotic repetition of the same things as if to gain new enthusiasm each time, without any real basis for this enthusiasm. It was a parasite.

The Puritans hence invite the problem of a society where actions are not only inverted to foreign purposes, but taken away by forces that shall later constitute themselves as 'America.' The Puritans wished to form a religious state, but then were rendered unable to because this was too 'strict.' Lack of power corrupts absolutely, and the USA is a tribute to this.

However, the Puritans flowed quite smoothly into future societies, and hence were in a sense quite compromised. They also connected Britain to the USA - both their histories shared the Puritans as major 'antagonists' in the official retelling, and hence they were closely linked in terms of what they could easily oppose. A country's ideological enemies generally speaking need a historical basis, or the country has gone its whole time not being defined against this, and has to remake itself to face an enemy which isn't even its enemy as it is so far, which seems implausible for most notable nations. Hence, the link between the USA and Britain, despite being frayed earlier, dovetailed in the 1900s. As the Puritans started giving way to opposed tendencies, which they had always accommodated, and became in a way 'Americanised' as opposed to the religions they had sought to bring from Britain, so also Britain started to serve the less strict USA. This is misleading: Britain is in many ways laissez-faire, as its highest state position has little legislative power. Still, this is not something they can build an image around. The British state was too swathed in illusions to stand for anything, it could only stand still and cast these illusions if it was supported from elsewhere.


So then, were the Puritans that unique? In a way, yes: they were concentrated and modern. As an American historical figure, however, they have been surrounded by a certain mysticism. They were in many ways not that distinct in the traits usually pointed out. However, they were from the beginning compromised - they attempted to form a new society, without any detailed social theory, pretty much as they had experienced 'society' in previous states, with whoever was eligible (which could be anyone), but they also tried to take a stance against this form of society in various if limited ways. Hence, it involved conflicting elements. It could not do what it was trying at a given time. It constructed something that fought it, but that fought it with its own help. Their conflict was hence that between positivism - the acceptance of how things were in the general society, and its accepted implementation - and the ability to implement political and religious ideas of their own, or social regulation. This conflict continued to be major through the years. The Puritans were very much a question of observation - people saw things they disliked, and acted against this or on an opposed principle, but did not however have legislative power to initiate a direction fundamentally opposed to this. Yet, for these Puritans, the ensuing history of the state was in political terms something of a nightmare.

'Finding Jerry'

People generally were expected to proclaim strongly their own superiority, intellectually and generally, to one Adolf Hitler, who was leader of Germany in the 1940s and wrote books and speeches of generally more political depth than most modern politicians. Notably, their Party also declared war on the British Empire and Soviet Union. They were frequently expected to read Mein Kampf and be revolted immediately by how much better they were than it, how much it was below them. This was how they treated Hitler. However, Hitler was leader of Germany and a powerful statesman - and, guess what, the next day these same people would have to return to the ordinary life which compels this reaction to Hitler as under a knife, yet where they would willingly submit and show obeisance to any authority figure or person of wealth and stature. One might ask how they continue, when this contradiction seems manifest - although in a sense it merely follows that these people of whatever type are in no position to criticise Hitler for anything, or that Hitler has a partial immunity here. In general, it would seem to follow that for these things to be clearly harmonised and allowed for, it requires general incorporation into their lives. Hence, it isn't actually sufficient that they disapprove of Hitler completely - and can brush him off cheaply - and then go into an environment where this can be applied to anyone, but rather the authority figures must be validated in some way, must be automatically set apart from and against Hitler. This would only have been the case in the British (or, technically, the French - but they got not very far) army of the 1940s war. There, it was a group of people with an administrative set-up which was automatically and directly part of the struggle against Hitler, almost by proxy, and hence which offered - at least - a partial resolution of this conflict. As such, these people had to treat their workplace as so to speak the British Army against Hitler, as the continuance of this in modern times, where each member is a soldier serving the anti-Hitler cause and any member dissenting of this cause is likely to be cast aspersion upon and thrown out - which could not be done arbitrarily or as if Hitler were not somewhere present here.

This was only a partial security for these people, however. Of course, it was still inconsistent, given the capitalistic system that the British Army were fighting for and on behalf of, or in brief given the British nation of the time, and hence the only at all consistent solution was that of Gandhi - that Britain should submit and Nazi targets commit suicide like lemmings are often portrayed as doing. To be fair, Gandhi's cause was given significant momentum by Hitler's war, and as their primary cause benefitted from this side they had to have a certain sense of indifference to the war. While Nazism was an attempt to avenge German treatment and their apparently unfair loss of the war, Russia conversely was a state formed in retreat from opposing forces and hence which took refuge in the pre-existent template of 'socialist' politics, which however ultimately collapsed under opposition as was the inevitable result - due to the 'internationalism' of Second International socialism (Engels offered some contrast and had highly nationalistic tendencies at times), the Soviet Union exercised international  influence, but because of this it was gridlocked into the format of 'peaceful co-existence' and integrated into this international system, which made it idle as a point of opposition to this. A political system which is denationalised or has no clear link to a concrete representation is one which is idle or merely an existent economic category turned into a pseudo-political system; that is, unless it is merely an expression of an individual's temperament and thus cut off from others, but then it is in a way exclusive to this individual and people's evaluation of them. The natural form of realisation of a political system or viewpoint is the nation, or its demesne, and with no realisation of this a political system is idle or does not by itself have any viewpoint. A state forged in promises of retreat from this kind of assertion on the world is always likely to turn into something like the Soviet Union, as in a sense it is a mere shelter from war rather than a politically significant entity. As a state, it must call upon some political ideology - however, because it is formed through promises of retreat, this cannot be a mode of expression of the state, and hence must be denationalised and abstract. Nonetheless, Marxism must be one of the only systems to get essentially one chance to prove itself, while in conflict of course with the rest of the world and tendencies in a nation which want to co-operate with this - which is somewhat like saying that the lack of monarchs (or effective idleness of monarchs as a governing force, which is just a variation) failed de facto with Cromwell.

Socialism has many forms, and it might seem strange that everyone instantly accepts that Marxism is the only one which counts and the earlier and similar forms can be dismissed if it has problems, and likewise that after about half a century we could draw the conclusion that it could be thrown aside rather than amended or improved in any way - in brief, that even capitalism's supporters are Bordigists. You might suggest that there were many people during that time who did not want to give it a chance, and hence it had an uphill struggle.

In general, popular recent novels for instance have either originated in Britain or drawn upon British archetypes - the Hunger Games for instance drew upon the image of active resistance to some random 'totalitarian' forces, which is ultimately a British archetype, as well as grabbing and relying upon the archetypes of British authors like George Orwell. Hence, this sense of a British context was fairly inherent to them, because it means that people who dislike them can be safely dismissed rather than given increasing ground and allowed or encouraged. If you wanted to make noise about something, noise against it had to be hidden away or attacked, or it would just be a meaningless cacophany - which in a way it is anyway. The classics are not dry for no reason, they are dry so that they would not inspire strong negative feelings or aimless enthusiasm about the work of art in their case, and hence could take some sort of message forwards and last. Marx set themselves the task of not fading away like the fragile utopians, and as time went by had to take on an increasingly detached tone to avoid this at all costs. Recent British popular novels are just fake classics.

There may have been poetry after Auschwitz, but increasingly people did not read it. This is because poetry includes several mechanisms which lead to a somewhat dry approach to things, and this was eventually ruled out in the form of Nazism. It might be said that 'Bordiga's' approach to the Nazis was found offensive not because he said anything actually offensive for most of it - his generally attributed comments about the worst effects of fascism being anti-fascism are highly offensive to people, realistically, but they can still pretend to like him somehow - but because he wished to analyse it rather than merely give way to possibly opposed sentiments. Of course, if any analysis were to be made, however flawed - and Bordiga's analysis was highly flawed, in its attempt to assimilate the Nazis to Marxist categories which were least appropriate to them -, this required avoiding this sentimental mode for a moment. Hence, Bordiga was a victim of a social agenda of sorts that applied after the Nazis - everything had to be poetry after the Nazis. Poetry as an art form is simply the locking up of a person in the form of a poem, for other people to inspect, although it can view other things as higher than poetry and not accept this schema. People could no longer write things and expect instant reactions - it had to be vetted before anyone could react to it, and if people disagreed they would jettison it in shock. This didn't stop the Marxists, who if they read Marx generally only thought it of note to note down that they disagreed. But it could be said that, after Marx and Engels, the Marxist movement was pure poetry.

Admittedly, Mitchell Abidor's introduction to 'Auschwitz, the great Alibi' was somewhat strange, and read like a person who had no idea what they were intending to read (an analysis of the Holocaust in socio-historical terms) or indeed what Marxism involved. Perhaps they believed the academic reduction of Marxism to a bunch of phrases like 'class struggle,' and so were shocked when the Marxists started actually talking about things. They just wandered into this and then panicked. Still, Marxism by this point is like a sieve that people can move into and out of as they please, it is an art and not a determinate entity. People can disagree with Marx persistently and take a generally negative attitude towards their works, and yet still be Marxists, so long as they are discussing Marxism. It's a question of handling an aesthetic, not of anything particularly determinate. Now, this makes it almost inevitable that such texts are going to be attacked - they might assume that they have safety and can claim a certain obscure viewpoint, but if something is objectionable to society generally, just about anybody could just drop in and attack it, and the Bordigist text is hence a barely-moving target.

Evil is something relevant to all determinate action - that which is excluded is 'evil.' Hence, Nazism was relevant to almost all determinate action in capitalism: people either judged an evil or opposed thing by the standard of Nazism, or they just didn't get it. The latter is their problem, and not a problem with the text. Now, if people object to a text because they don't understand it, they will take issue with the next text to the same extent, because it will surprise them and they will be perturbed by it - this is a dynamic which becomes tiring quickly, and one might as well just offend them and get it over with. Because we know that this Bordiga has some claws at least, or can be offensive, if people don't get Bordiga then we can accept that they would be distanced from these people - they don't continually go into their texts with expectations that they will be catering to them and their interests and view, whatever these are. If this is not presented explicitly, then it gets tiring - although of course they might well get shunned for it.

In leftist groups, certain terms are buzz-words which can lead to rejection, but these are all that people get passionate about discussing. Continually discussing topics which have the threat of expulsion tied to them on some level is not something that people should continue with, or have to. But why would they do this? Multiple reasons. Firstly, non-Marxists weren't necessarily interested in Marxism, which is both offensive to what they believe and value, and also dry and involved; but they were fine with people who just wanted to take Marxism and make it a hardly different flavour of what they already did. Marxism was based on Hegel in some ways, and he was not one for presenting 'results' emptied out by eschewing the reasons and process behind them - and when this process was supposed to be an involved examination of interconnected economic categories, then, well, this could raise problems if it isn't to be abandoned completely. And when it's abandoned, you don't have Marxism, just phrases stolen from it and used without the same reasons, mere appearance and imagery without substance. People generally preferred that Marxism be a flavour of something compatible with capital, and hence when 'Marxism' was to be discussed - and in leftist groups or discussion generally this was an alleged focus, but it would be misleading to say that anybody cared about it - it was in this form and hence in a sense a foray out, where Marxism was not to be allowed to return without a threat of expulsion for whatever reason. While Marxist theory is a somewhat open field, Marxist discussion is like being walled in on various sides until discussing Marxism is no longer an option - they have a notably problem with discussing Marx, and relating other things back to Marxism is a bridge too far for them. Relating things back to them is essentially giving them a direction which draws the things which they like and find accessible off into the distance and far from where most people were comfortable. In addition, Marxism is something which is generally excluded from actual social life, or somewhat distanced from it, and hence in a sense if it is put into interaction with this social life then it is simply a question of querying the strange creatures who call themselves 'Marxists,' and from there on the terrain becomes hostile. A 'Marxist' Party or discussion group is vulnerable to this unless it's pretty much just you and Jesus, or in general people more detached from such interaction and enthusiasm, if hypothetically they happened to have an interest in discussing these things.

Neo-Nazism, while it might seem disturbing, can take on strange forms - for instance, people who believe that British history stopped in the 1940s, and hence are fervent British nationalists trumpeting Britain's heritage. Stormfront are moderate - you could call them black nationalists, as they do want a black nation. They're just another case of 'poetry' or 'art' in lieu of politics - a certain aesthetic is what interests them, and what they pretend distinguishes them from other views. The Nazis lost over 50 years ago, but they want to pretend that their side can hardly stop winning; they pretend to be radical, but their support of Trump places them at around the same level as the CPUSA, except with no doctrinal concerns or even political views to give them even the appearance of an association with radicalism. Stormfront is, on the one hand, rich people and pretend-rich people congratulating themselves on how rich they are (though they may, as Hitler was, be poor), and living vicariously through others, and on the other hand it is a conduit for more radical political tendencies inspired by the Nazis that however have no explicit sanction there for image reasons and otherwise. In a way, you'd have to be quite radical to go to Stormfront for political reasons, when Stormfront is just about as hostile a place to political views generally as possible - but politics and seriousness there isn't the main trend, and alongside this comes things like praising 'beautiful white Amazonian' females in a way that might resemble a lyre if its player were an annoyed cat enmeshed in it. In general, Neo-Nazism rarely interacts with Nazism, so you might suspect they don't figure there's much of worth there. Without Neo-Nazis, the Nazis would just be this ever-present force of opposition, that could be realised in any way and suddenly, but Neo-Nazis served to neutralise this so far as they could do so. At least, when it was an accusation thrown at Neo-Nazis - otherwise it might still scare and disturb them.

In general, Nazism isn't quite coherent enough to constitute something exactly outside of the opposing workplace or society, and other things might oppose it. These are all seen through the lens of Nazism, but do not like Nazism try to integrate into European society as closely, and hence cannot have the same dramatic potential because they are just generally divergent rather than diverging in only certain particular and striking ways. Nazism was something which the system saw fit to associate with all that it opposed and hated, and in general all that it considered evil - that which was not incorporated into it. The Bordigists represented Auschwitz as a new and pernicious alibi in the fight against socialism, but it would seem unlikely that Auschwitz would formulate any new alibis against socialism unless socialism were somehow involved, such that this seems problematic unless we are to surmise that these Bordigists considered the Nazis to be socialists. Nonetheless, it did furnish a new alibi of sorts - an image of evil which could easily be opposed to an image of Western capitalism as good. The war hence becomes a fight against the 'real enemy,' and hence the other sides are allies - this cannot be avoided, if you would ally with them. If you take this image of evil too seriously, but hardly care about people praising capitalism or not doing so (many anarchists are like this), then ultimately capitalism's image is the only beneficiary of this. Hence, this was a clear political move - the more evil something is, the better everything else is, the more praised.

But this is in some ways a literary move. The British Empire - of course, Britain only shed some parts of its Empire, rather than changing itself completely - and for that matter the Soviet Union was hardly spotless. But when people talk about Britain during the war, they talk of course about Britain as seen through contrast with Nazism - where the objectionable elements are cleaned away. At the least, there is some capitalistic aspect which is a force for pure good in an era where socialism was established, which is really enough to make socialism dismissed. Socialism was for many years obscured precisely because all of this shine was enough to mean that it was merely a vague exception. It could easily be conflated with reformism - all it did was pick partial holes in something which was basically and clearly good. Capitalism could not be clearly attacked by forces that were not co-operative with it. Nonetheless, the main tropes of anti-socialism in the following years grew out of this war, which created a world which in any case seemed to require little alteration. Capital took recourse to a sense of 'conservatism' if you like that promoted capital because it was there, and to do this you needed to whitewash all of this to form a basis on which discussion could be promoted. This was only allowed for after the war, after capital had finally found a force firmly in opposition to it and not serving it. Discussion begun on this basis promised little for socialism, for the main point had already been conceded and any incidental dents were unlikely to make a notable impact, but attempting to eschew this basis led to instant attack and rejection.

Socialism had little headway because it had no place in that socio-political landscape. With the fall of the Soviet Union, it hence fell away generally and became irrelevant. It lost a nation which co-operated with the West, but after this brief seeming incursion in the present world situation fell away, it was left with a completely clean slate. Socialism was no longer a radical force - instead, dividing up and invading the Middle East became a Western focus and opposition to the international system was concentrated there. The left, however, was a Western creature that had made many Western norms into issues of automatic exclusion when people diverged from them, and hence became mere slaves benefitting the West in its actual issues, and quite willingly. They could not put forward a coherent and different political platform, because most of what was important to them was, strangely, things that were common.

The Nazis were an image of evil because of their domestic politics, making their nation into an image of sorts - Britain was excluded from this because they focussed on 'foreign' politics, or oppressing and fighting Indians, and so on. The British domestic policy hence became merely a mirror of Nazis' to ideology, and Nazi foreign policy focussed around their domestic area. Due to their whitewashing as states, their 'alibi,' they felt quite comfortable just throwing states up and trying to displace the nations of a given area. Hence, the Middle East were effectively confronted with the ghost of anti-Nazi forces in every way, and with expansionism in many forms. Conversely, they faced little resistance from what the West finds most offensive, namely things which seemed 'Nazi'-like, and hence the qualification that all other things were far less offensive than this would merely be an external hindrance to their struggle. It was not merely a British Empire, but instead a global capitalistic Empire, one where the major capitalist states could just take on various forms spreading like a cancer over the globe. Hence, it was a financial Empire, and had to find suitable forms of expressing this. For all the hype about the USA, after the 20th Century the world had changed dramatically, and the USA was old and its image practically ancient. This all hearkened back to a time when none of these conflicts yet existed, to a different world order, and hence such patriotism could not adequately express the new world order, if we may use this phrase in a more generic sense. Instead, new nations had to arise to do this, such as Israel. Without these, all of the new elements of the world order and so on found no expression, and hence they were necessarily forged by these powers, through whatever means. The alternative to this was 'leftism,' which also expressed this, but rather than in the form of enthusiasm for a given state through the form of Israel and so on, through taking nearly any popular movement in capitalism and excluding anything else. This served to link all of these different places together. As we are now still seeing, all nations had to be harmonised artificially through things like the Olympics to allow for the impression that all of these things were also made new by these new states and were not reducible to the old things which they themselves were chained to.

Nonetheless, the Nazis created a problem - if they were taken as a picture, how could this picture not be tampered with in the process of a war, remain focussed on a domestic, 'totalitarian' perspective rather than getting caught up in patriotic fervour and other such things which colour portraits of for instance the Spanish Armada? How, likewise, could they be secured as a source of feeling from history, where things like gladiators, colonialism and suchlike are commonplace - and often would have gone much further if they were capable of it - and might reduce their impact? Britain could in a sense add no more to the Nazis as such than they found, and hence had to draw on Nazi patterns - belligerent elected leaders, with imperial hopes, drawing on themes like blood and land and using similar gestures. If they didn't portray things in these terms, from early on, they would be speaking of a conflict, and not get immediate sanction to talk about domestic policies and what 'everyone' accepted as an exemplary evil.

How could a tendency be accepted as something outside of the system, something that was not merely reformist? A 'revolution' could mean anything, and is used to describe any loud political movement - it means nothing by itself. It could rearrange social relations, or it could just rearrange objects. A socialist often wished to be outside this or to appear so, but this was less straightforward than it might appear, they usually would just deal up a bunch of ideals that were mild enough to mean anything. This was hardly that critical. Changes to political form were commonly proposed, changes to organisation of economic units without any particular consideration of the economic context or what they were doing were common, but changes to the overall economy which changed it to something else were not common. So 'revolution' didn't really mean much. This was suspect. Still, after over a century, socialism was something of a damp squib - a movement that meant nothing, a word that meant little, a revolution that meant less than Ron Paul's, and the hope that some group might take them somewhere. Obviously, whether they wanted this depended on where they wanted to go. But this neutralisation benefitted the 'socialists,' and meant they were not distanced from the system - so why would they complain? The socialist movement was primarily a mirage, where buzz-words were everything and politics and such almost nothing.

Being outside of reformism was not as easy as saying so. A cosmetic change is cosmetic - although it can be presented in various ways, it need not be so. Ultimately, if you start from a given social system, and are plausibly locked in discourse with it, everything you're dealing with is actually capitalist. You could propose things which are compatible with socialism, such as, 'Birds can still fly,' or, 'People could still fall down ladders,' but these could be possible under other systems. These are merely illustrative, but are just as valid as most of the more 'sophisticated' portrayals of socialism. Most traits of 'socialism' are reducible to these. Socialism, of course, was what was to be contrasted to capitalist reality, and in this sense was an ideal or if you like an aim. If an ideal was fundamental to capitalism, it would be present and fully realised somewhere in capitalism, as Marx often noted in some way, unless socialism or some other external system were getting in the way. Otherwise it could hardly be that fundamental, if it may be eschewed and capitalism remain what it is at all. Many words which Marx used are mere tautologies when used outside of their specific context - all conflicts involve 'contradictions,' and as Hegel observed in dealing with motion only a contradiction with something essentially outside of a moment could dissolve it, while things like the 'law of value' in some form or other were common before Marx, and other things in the book even in context are merely vague generalities that could mean anything. In addition to this, he repeatedly calls on Hegelian concepts without giving the reader any clear suggestion of what they are to mean here, which might work in shorthand as with Marx's comments on calculus, but in a longer work just means that he's persistently relying on Hegel to gratuitously fill in the gaps in his own work. We are to just assume that the author has a similar take on Hegel, if people are to read Marx in these sections, when of course these small phrases can permit of interpretation.

Ultimately, precisely because it put too much emphasis on use-values, the law of value would disappear from the field - people did not want too much focus on specific things and how they are valued, which would disturb the act of creating values irrespective to content. Hence, this section of Marx remained unpopular among most social strata, often proclaimed something that people should avoid despite Marx using it to put forward the framework of his system. Inviting people to just throw themselves at the rest of a book without knowing what it means specifically is literally just asking for the kinds of objections commonly given to the book. A fair few people read Das Kapital - but they ultimately rejected it. For a bible, Marxism had only the Manifesto, which is a short work that at least shares with the Bible that it veers from its initial direction to something quite different. This is a short work written on request, which is not an attempt at anything too dramatic or developed, but merely a short presentation. People don't read Marx for explanations, they read it so that they can see what his problem is with everything they do. In general, then, the illusion of sides - socialism and capitalism - is imputed onto Marx's texts, in the manner of foreign imposition and for the entertainment of the viewer, in general vulgarised or hostile readings of it such that Marx is neatly placed into their own drama. These then seem clear, when they are not. A similar thing happens to the Bordigist text, except in a more modern context.

The general orientation of such a movement against the capitalist social system would be clear: it would be in constant and persistent conflict with them, within and without its own territory. It is a movement against this, that cannot simply let it standing without becoming a movement for something else. But then, national conflict can itself be amorphous, so the angle from which it did this would be important. In this, people don't like to talk about the politics of a nation (a political entity), but instead about atomised social units, which definition cannot of course be led to socialism by the 'anarchy of the market.' As such, there are so to speak multiple barriers to this being clear, and it is quite a difficult path. There is a firm contrast between statements of the form, 'Socialism is compatible with...' which could still have socialism itself be anything, and actually delineating socialism. Socialism is hence made to stand for something which is vaguely seen as good, as sharing the positive traits that other things also display, rather than divided from these things or aggressive about opposed systems. It is hence in the context of 'socialist unity' not a political movement at all, but instead a vague positive association, free to be conferred upon other things as well. A side fighting only in self-defence do not want to fight particularly, so they are weak - but only if the opposing side is particularly different in agenda, or has a notable motivation of some sort, as otherwise they will not be able to force the issue. Socialism might try in some way to attack the established order over a prolonged time, but will usually hence after any initial inroads be forced onto the defensive repeatedly, as a result of its being too similar.

In general, then, the boundaries between something which was and was not a part of the system was not clearly set forward by the word 'socialism,' or by common views on it. It could mean almost anything, depending on the personal quirks of the person whose socialism it was. On might hence derive, however, that socialism generally involved a limited interest in escaping from the society it was in. We mean this, of course, not in the sense of 'escapism,' which is idle - nobody wants to escape, and then doesn't enact this -, but instead in the general sense of a fundamental alteration. But socialism of all forms had certain common characteristics - it was associated with 'goodness' of various sorts, with happiness, with alleviation of 'ills,' with servants rather than masters, and so on from there. After the Second World War, all of this was in a sense discredited, so with the passing of the Soviet Union the few remaining stalwarts such as an obscure clause in the Labour Party's constitution which seemingly didn't make a socialist impression and others became idle and faded away. These traits could occur either in partial gains or be restricted to a pseudo-radical political change. Stalinists or 'Marxists-Leninists' associated socialism with traits attributed to the domestic association of the Soviet Union, such as efficient and strict labour, which made them able to show up in places where other currents often didn't, but also with some of the classic traits. Stalinism is hence mostly taking the traits of Western capitalism, such as wages, and then trying to show how exalted they are by taking on a Stalinist Russian form. It is the ideology of peaceful co-existence. Stalinism generally shuns anything too radical for it, albeit gradually and after the tacit acceptance that they give to 'socialists' and people who seem appropriate to this movement.

The sun sets and rises, but does the threat feared in Nazism remain through this, is this basis of evil present throughout? It generally only seems to arise when social conduct or alternatively human expression is concerned. Outside of this, how do people reassure themselves that they have a sense of good and evil? Their whole frame of reference shatters. Mostly, to people, good and evil were things that spur feelings, which hence have to be encountered in some form. But what happens when the link to this becomes missing? And this could be a problem for conservatism of the traditional sort, as time went on - people increasingly faded out and became amoral, unconcerned about their values. Yet this threat is always present, because social interaction and the presence of these ideas of evil is only experienced in the form of some particular, limited community or neighbourhood, yet this has always the danger of external elements which wish to enter - which are defined by their externality and being outside of this - and which threaten it. Hence, the movement against immigration was in a sense always likely. But this only occurs in a time when the major political currents have become idle - one is merely a vehicle for identity and dynastic politics, and the other has been replaced in its own Party. There are no more firm boundaries, and what does a nation mean when a significant proportion of it want someone elected essentially for their surname? Is it that different from the others? Still, if Nazism frightens them, it also lets them all into contact with it. It has a notable element which is not political, which hence undermines the political element. But then, so does most 'socialism.'

Hence, as we said, a denationalised and depersonalised ideology is necessarily in some ways a part of the system, hypostatised elsewhere. This describes most of socialism. But it can barely escape the halo that capitalism gained over time, a halo being something which it had often relied on. It hence became idle. To separate from the system, and posit a goal outside of it, meant to depart from this system briefly. But socialism rarely wished to do this - people joined socialism if they did mostly only because it made them happy already, when their goals were not yet set outside of the system socialism was their favoured of such goals. No difficulty was suggested. It was more like an expedition or road trip than a serious interest. But over time it became a very brief road trip. Ultimately, when 'evil' was ever-present, something that flaunted its credentials as such only to continually reduce to some warped exercise in being 'good' was a mere mirage, leading in directions which led nowhere. It could affect some people, but mostly it was not political; the left was just a way of doing penance to the UN.