A More Honest Political Compass

There are many graphs akin to the 'political compass' on the internet, all of which claim to portray the political spectrum and the nature of your politics. We thought we would post an improved version. It is similar to the previous political compasses, however now we have edited them to properly reflect the extent of their ability to characterise political views across the spectrum. We feel like this will give a more accurate reading of your politics, while still exploiting the capacities of the political compass to the full. Enjoy:

This hopefully illustrates the power of the political compass itself to enlighten you about politics.

Everything's bigger in Texas

Trump doesn't support illegal immigration. It's not grandiose enough, you see.

Instead, he supports Israel, a whole state that 'immigrated' into the middle of the Middle Eastern states. Indeed, he goes to great lengths to do so.

We can see that Trump's politics are often akin to a politics of 'reality TV.' There isn't much passion so much as a pretense.

Ocasio-Cortez isn't close to a 'socialist,' as even figures within the Democratic Party have noted. Ocasio-Cortez is merely a moderate 'reformist,' if that. The overall bourgeois agenda remains the same. Yet Trump is apparently a 'fascist,' and Ocasio-Cortez more willingly a 'socialist.' The mild bourgeois political crowd are not content to leave radicalism alone, they wish for their petty dramas to seem larger-than-life by pretending that radicalism is involved. Instead of actually letting people engage with 'fascism' or 'communism,' the bourgeois electoral politics have decided that it would be safer to just re-enact a diluted version of this drama on the political arena, to assure people that there is no way out of their bourgeois 'centrist' Matrix.

In the world of bourgeois politics, they proudly hold to the old biblical saying, "All is vanity."

Multiculturalism or...

There are valid reasons for bringing liberal multiculturalism into question. While it proclaims diversity, it only ultimately wishes for all cultures to surrender their unique or fervent characteristics to take a place in a society governed by the mores of capitalist society. This multiculturalism seeks to manufacture a consensus between various cultures on the basis of their role in capitalist society. This is then represented as a faithful representation of their culture, although it is merely a culture reduced to an indistinguished moment of 'capitalist society.' There is much to object to in such multiculturalism.

However, what is to be opposed to 'multiculturalism' of this sort?

There is a recent trend of opposing Western multiculturalism in favour of some construct of 'white' or 'Western' culture. This is occasionally due to considerations like the theory of 'white genocide,' which confusingly involves little actual genocide. The term 'white genocide' is typically a term used by 'white supremacist' racists and fellow-travellers to glibly reclaim objections that they are genocidal or xenophobic - they appropriate the left's language of victimhood, and use it uncritically in their own favour, even though modern leftist rhetoric is not fit for any purpose other than extinction. These anti-Islamic and 'Western' ideas are less exotic than they seem: is it truly extreme to encourage the West to take measures against Islam and Muslim Arabs when the Middle East has encountered continual invasion for spurious reasons alongside the West's persistent support for Israel? Of course, despite the innocuous fear of 'white genocide' and claims that it is 'okay to be white,' this conceit might well surprise the Middle East where the 'white' Americans have considered themselves so far from oppressed as to freely bomb and pillage Middle Eastern cities. The 'alt-right' consider it radical and offensive to say 'deus vult,' when in truth the West's foreign policy in the Middle East has been invasive for years with or without orders from Pope Francis.

While multiculturalism can have its problems, it maintains the independence of politics as a field from any particular capitalistic culture. Politics is not used merely to serve as a bulwark for some 'Western' culture. Further, this act of not setting politics up as the mere functionary of culture would allow for serious discourse on the more fundamental matters of class, economy and political structure. To dedicate politics to some Western reactionary construct of 'culture' would be almost as much a regression as to dedicate politics to leftist identity politics and cancel culture. It also serves to distract from a serious comprehension of social and political issues. On this ground, liberal multiculturalism comes up wanting, and represents only the persistent tendency of capitalism to abstract from concrete differences and foist the homogeneity of money upon society.

Hence, it is important to be careful in condemning multiculturalism. It is important that in attacking some form of it we do not merely do so on behalf of one or other culture, but from a more comprehensively critical perspective. While there may be a 'culture war,' the real war is not on behalf of one culture or other, but against the rigged social system.

'Cultural Marxism'

 'Cultural Marxism' is a conspiratorial agenda alleged to determine Western culture. This hence appears to represent an 'adapted' form of Marxism. It is a common bête noire in entrenched alt-right groupings.

It can hence seem akin to a mere over-dramatic accusation using 'Marxism' as a pantomime villain, therefore a form of merely continuing prejudice around the Cold War and Marxism. However, speaking of a 'cultural Marxist establishment' is not altogether misled. As 'Marxism' has taken on a form more in keeping with 'establishment' liberalism, it has also tended to avoid 'dry' economic issues in favour of 'cultural' and social justice issues favoured by liberalism. It would be valid to remark that this is not 'Marxism' in a strict sense, and is more akin to a variant of liberalism. After all, don't several Marxist political parties fall in line and support liberal parties like the Demorats in elections? However, this also raises the question of how and why Marxist categories are quickly repurposed to serve the agenda of the powerful liberal elite.

'Cultural Marxism' often overstates the influence of 'Marxist ideology' in upholding the mores of Western capitalism. Marxism is merely a set of vague ideas, and the world order cannot be based on mere talk. However, it is nonetheless true that a 'cultural' and demographic-focused use of Marxist tropes and rhetoric has come to entrench itself somewhat in the Western liberal establishment. Instead of being an actual opposition, Marxist rhetoric now springs easily from the womb of liberal capitalism. This suggests that Marxist ideas have ultimately originated from capitalistic concepts, and exist in a symbiotic relationship with capitalist ideology rather than truly opposing it. As a result, Marxism is not truly revolutionary.

The Nation, Reprise

A nation is a political entity, not necessarily a geographical one. It is the form taken by a political force, when it has attained political power.

However, the modern nation has no political substance. Its state and politics alters every few years; further, in a capitalistic system the political agenda is avoided in favour of the actions of atomised actors. The state is reduced to tending to private, economic interests. Hence, ultimately, it is forced to fall behind capital, although in practice this is to evade the political in favour of economic interests. However, more decisively, the 'politics' of a nation are hence insubstantial, an empty 'hole' to be filled by foreign content. This nation is ultimately also 'insubstantial.'

Hence, the nation is reduced to arbitrary, 'geographical' boundaries, in lieu of a substantial political entity. Its politics are indefinite, variable,and ultimately empty. Hence, politically the nation means nothing. It is merely an 'obstacle,' an extent of land barred from political forces. It is in contradiction with itself, however, and hence ultimately limited and torn apart.

Hence, although the political is an aspect of humans, it appears in an 'alienated' form - the 'political' plays out in a realm separated from itself, it is torn away from itself. That which it wants and which is a content proper to it, is enacted where it is not. There is a certain level of superstition or 'patriotism' which is inherent to this. It is hence connected to what we have previously referred to as the 'imaginative' element of capitalistic economies. Further, there arises an even more degenerated politics that calls for replacing struggle with 'co-operation' between nations and 'leaving behind differences,' merely indulging in the emptiness which the capitalistic economy reduces politics to. Nonetheless, along with this 'patriotism' is the firmer 'nationalism' - the demand that the political element establish itself in a primary role, and subject the other elements of the nation which have trivialised it. This is still, in some ways, often merely a distortion of the 'patriotism' of nations, expressing yet not decisively expressing the contradictions of the capitalistic nation. It often scavenges among the nations and people there for an identity, it does not like communism aim primarily at a break with this and towards the future. Hence, while a necessary form taken by the continual self-negation of the counterfeit-political, it is nonetheless itself often limited. It often, in any case, plays a generic political role, set out for it by this system - when the nationalistic comes to play a decisive role, as it must, then it will eventually break free of this generic character. However, it might initially be reluctant about this, about lacking a clear 'anchor ' or 'belonging' in a systematic niche. This must nonetheless occur, in such a situation.

However, along with this development, there is also the continuing 'externalisation' of political and substantial movements from themselves, the manufacturing of hollow, 'phantom' versions of these. These artificial forms are still contradictory, and in a way more contradictory. They are also highly 'derivative' and empty. Nonetheless, you hence have a 'realm' which cannot be accessed by the political, or indeed by official and straightforward means, which hence exists at a level of separation from the realm of genuine content. To keep this separate, the 'gateways' to it must be increasingly 'rigged' and targetted towards limiting genuine content from getting through - eventually barring the gates to the field entirely, or consigning it to the 'imaginative.' Nonetheless, these alienated realms must eventually expand into a right leviathan, akin to an informal aristocracy.

Firstly, however, this then starts to 'self-cannibalise' - its participants are obligated to act this way towards each other, as this is how they function. Hence, actors are set apart, again as though by a screen, and act in parallel as though 'self-sufficient'. They ultimately stand together against the genuine content, or in a 'reactionary' sense; nonetheless, they inhabit a form of 'pseudo-capital' that still threatens this division. However, as this 'realm' is self-undermining, or continually absorbs hostile elements, the hierarchy there - given that they are 'cut off' by default - is merely determined by who can continue to stand out despite inimical tendencies. While all elements in this realm relate to the content similarly, they hence are mostly distinguished by their ability to stay a focus despite the others starting to cut them off and subjecting them to their own means. This relates not to their standing out, necessarily, rather to their channeling things in that direction relative to the others. This cannot occur in too complex a form, given their role.

Hence, among the nations, 'nationalism' draws on conflicts and division. Aggressive modern regimes - Nazi Germany, the USSR, ISIS - have generally arisen in the after-math of war and conflict. Hence, they draw on 'cycles' of conflict and hatred, which are a contradiction that must eventually, dragon-like, explode and tear the world order apart. In some way, these incursions foreshadow its end. As the realm of the national and political is quickly set against the capitalistic form, this aggravation is hence aggressive - while in the cultural realm it is usually only destructive or makes the whole field appear peculiar. Nonetheless, if these nations do not turn against the system itself, they cannot support this division and will be supplanted by those who are less mired in it. The nations which attempt to avoid getting caught up in their division will 'survive,' until the whole system disappears. Likewise, more generally: nations which turn against the system, yet remain branded, by it will have problems with nations more 'consistent' with it. However, the nations that hijack this division do so with a purpose higher than the system, not merely to survive as a 'stable' entity within it. Hence, if they encounter problems with this, this does not impinge on their purpose - which shall eventually be realised. In this progression, 'nationalism' will eventually leave this circumscribed role and take on an independent form.

The Fascist

The struggle against 'fascism' - usually just perceived - which takes on a specialised form, is an exclusive preserve of liberalism.

Mainstream capitalist ideology is responsible for and compatible with a high degree of anti-fascism. This has very little to do with 'fascism,' that might not even be present, and more to do with the role of fascism in the self-vindicating mythology of modern liberal democracy.

It belongs to liberalism, or that part of capitalism which merely wishes for 'class-collaborationism' and to safeguard capitalism by ensuring mutual consent of its members. It necessarily serves to 'dilute' or oppose radical political trends that partake of it, or dilute the 'negativity' and 'hate' in a movement, such as to preserve the given social coherence. Positive sentiment and relations are encouraged in the present, a barricade against radical opposition to the present system of relations. Hence, if the movement against 'fascism ' is to be characterised, it is in these terms. However, it can often merely chase shadows, as, like a capitalist corporation that is forced relentlessly to produce new content even without a spur, it tends to 'manufacture' fascism even when it isn't there in order to maintain its empty sense of relevance and urgency. This is because it is selling a product, one that aims to dilute or undermine radical opposition to the system and which hence has to be kept going compulsively after some perceived 'fascism.' Nonetheless, this merely furthers its liberal nature, and gives it no other real basis.

In any case, what about 'fascist' movements? Fascism was not always a simply 'racist' movement. 'Racism' at the time characterised many nations. Further, the desire for a 'racial' nation is not one unique to whites - it is also a property of Judaism, known also for its racial warfare and belief in a 'chosen people,' and exists in many forms. Hence, racial nationalism is not by itself fascist. Fascism is an ill-defined term in some ways restricted to a 'concrete movement' or period, and hence is often reduced to something simplistic like 'racism.' It would be difficult to have a coherent movement against it. 'Anti-fascism' lives on because the capitalist establishment has declared Nazism the ultimate embodiment of its own fears, and so-called 'revolutionaries' have risen to the task of opposing what the system tells them is most evil. Of course, the system also considers revolution to be evil - but then, modern anarcho-communists don't really care about revolution, so long as transsexual people are given the appropriate gender pronoun and nobody seriously criticises Israel.

However, the spectre of 'fascism' nonetheless represents a force resistant to 'liberal democracy' and 'anarcho-communism,' a vision of nation with a sense of direction that unifies it. If one makes a dichotomy of anarchist and 'non-socialist' fascist, there is no room left for the Marxist or for socialism; the socialist aim of a guided society is wholly attributed to the 'non-socialist' fascist, or in any case is ignored structurally. Hence, such 'anarchism' is highly reactionary, in the end, and it is ultimately just a variant of liberalism. The more that liberalism is allowed to proclaim its ultimate emptiness and lack of direction as if this is substantial and benevolent, the more is conceded. The leftist panic over Trump, to which the obvious corollary was supporting Clinton, is one example of 'anti-fascist' panic being obviously used to undermine radicals and incorporate them into liberalism. Nonetheless, fascism is mainstream capitalism's very own vision of the devil, and opposition to it is nothing notably striking - further, this opposition generally cites the same reasons as the capitalist establishment. Mainstream capitalism is responsible for and compatible with a high degree of anti-fascism. This has very little to do with 'fascism,' that might not even be present, and more to do with the role of fascism in the self-vindicating mythology of modern liberal democracy.

Hence, caution is advised around this subject, for, 'the worst product of fascism is anti-fascism.'

Further information on comments

Please format all responses to this post with 'Historical — materialism —' at the opening, followed by your post. Try to have your post be something suitably rock-'n'-roll. The em-dashes are to convey the sheer historic nature of your historical materialism, of course. As the more prescient among you might have realised.

For example, some sample comments:

"Historical — materialism — You soul will feel my blade, stormbringer."

"Historical — materialism — Forces of darkness, the time has come to rawk."

"Historical — materialism — We'll be walking through leaves, when summer's gone we'll carry on."

"Historical — materialism — Assemble at once, tonight we ride!"

"Historical — materialism — Death lurks in the night."

"Historical — materialism — Sing a song of death or glory, sing a song of spite."

Hopefully by the end of this progression we will end up at some grand conclusion.

Although reader interaction can be good, sometimes we must set certain limits on it to make it genteel and respectable.

So please keep your Hitler salutes, etc., to another post where they are more welcomed. This post will  hopefully show how carefully we moderate such sentiments on this page.

Reading Group: Das Kapital

A commenter and acquaintance, Zanthorus, has recently attempted elsewhere to set up a two-man reading group of Das Kapital III. In solidarity with this idiosyncratic task, we shall write an account of a hypothetical two-man reading group of 'Das Kapital.' Which one, you might ask? The Capital Inicial album, of course.

The opening invitation:

'Hey bros I think we gotta have a real reading group. One on one, after the bell, in the parking lot. About Das Kapital. - Cain.'

The reading group:

Dramatis personae (or, '1200 years a slave'):

Cain: An enthusiastic fan of Das Kapital. 10 DEX, 48 INT, etc.

Lars Blake: A right bounder. 40 STR, 20 DEX, etc.

The discussion:

Resurreiçäo 

Cain: An interesting title.

Lars Blake: You could say they're opening on the stronger foot, eh?

Cain: Yep.

Lars Blake: This song presents a vision of chaos and disharmony across the world. It presents a world of incoherent demands, that they are expected to consider in composing the album.

Cain: They start by talking about a 'crown' and 'steering wheel,' as well as a 'glorious' life determined in a 'minute.' Could it be that 'Diana' is being alluded to in this album?

Lars Blake: That seems likely. How did you feel about Diana's death?

Cain: She was asking for it, I reckon.

Lars Blake: Look, now everybody hates you and is considering not reading this any more.

Cain: In this manner a glorious life is trivialised in a minute.

Lars Blake: How apt.

Cain: Ahem?

Lars Blake: I mean, 'Cool, that.'

Cain: Exactly.

Lars Blake: In any case, the song is slightly laid-back musically. This might be in part because they wish to focus on the message.

Cain: Well -

Lars Blake: Nah, Cain, you're talking too much. Give the blank, white space a chance.

: Lars Blake.

Cain: Did it just say your name?

Lars Blake: The blank space just wrote my name. Does it usually do that?

Cain: Let's check...

: Cain.

Cain: Exceptional.

Lars Blake: I mean, this is cool, but nobody's reading now because you offended them with the thing about Diana.

Cain: What about communists?

Lars Blake: Of course the communists are offended, they revere Diana as well apparently. Like, Diana is dead. So she's oppressed or unfortunate or something, right?

Cain: Good point.

Lars Blake: So the communists support her, mostly.

Cain: I once had a two-person reading group with Taylor Swift, actually. She couldn't read the book, so we quickly called it off. I wonder if this happens often?

Lars Blake: They mention that if you despair, then no-one is with you.

Cain: That sets up for the later song, 'Como se sente,' about despair.

Lars Blake: So this song is fairly appropriate for an opening. It does in some way consider the music itself, and the varying demands made of it that lead in no clear direction. You could hence call it slightly 'despairing.'

Cain: At the same time, it might seem slightly passive or indeterminate. It is noticing conflicts, nonetheless it does not indicate clearly a pathway towards deriving something from this.

Lars Blake: Of course, the title is appropriate due to this name being derived from old sources.

Cain: Still, it does trace a process of division akin to the rashes formed by eczema. Something that they are to treat as unified and revere, is nonetheless divided. Hence it might seem insubstantial.

Lars Blake: So you could say that this album does in some ways speak of itself.

Cain: Alright, yep. Hence, songs like 'Como se sente' might be expected to be personal or specific in some way.

Lars Blake: Anyway, this song had a fairly simplistic structure in some ways, though a slightly obscure and complex message. Not that much to say yet. We see here the divisions in things, or that what society posits as unified is actually divided and a mass of conflicting stimuli.

Cain: Which could hence be time-consuming.

Lars Blake: Yes, although people are instead expected to throw themselves into it without hesitation and passionately.

Cain: Which is only ultimately to tear themselves apart, as one thrown to sharks.

Lars Blake: Indeed. 'Love will tear us apart.' That seems likely to be how this kind of reading group will end, it's unlikely we'll reach the end of the album.

Cain: Nah, it's important that we finish Das Kapital. It could be instructive.

Lars Blake: If you said yes, then who would say no?

Cain: God, probably.

Lars Blake: Would they mean it?

Cain: It would be a metaphor.

Lars Blake: So could you freely ignore it?

Cain: Essentially.

Depois Da Meia-Noite

Cain: So this song is called 'After Midnight,' and -

Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHA

Cain: Um, excuse me?

Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cain: Alright, can anyone else say something about this song?

: Cain.

Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cain: Alright, that was kinda funny. Like, just a bit.

Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Cain: This is too much, though. Although I've said this before.

Lars Blake: AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The Haranguing Of Media

Recent politics has seen various attacks on the media, along with various angered responses by media organs. The outcry over these is notable, but partially decentralised - as media organs often are - and hence can seem like a bunch of noises rather than an unequivocal pronouncement. Of course, when left to themselves the media have often been quick to smear or attack political figures. This has often taken the form of 'shock,' perhaps because after staying camped in the Middle East for a decade attacking the media (or, for some in British Labour, Israel) is an incredibly egregious political action. It might come as a surprise to some that the Western governments have been so mild and peaceful of late, that an attack on the media counts as a shocking divergence. Nonetheless

The media is an organ which mediates interactions and experiences, but it is predominantly corporate or associated with bourgeois organs. It is hence best viewed as a propaganda outlet, as the bourgeoisie has ultimate authority over this mediation. Hence, caution about it can be important. 'Propaganda' might be a simplistic term here, as it does not simply promote but seeks to colonise existing experiences and actors and twist these in accordance with corporate ends. As it mediates experiences, or attempts to alter the audience's experience of the world in corporate directions, it goes somewhat beyond propaganda.

When we discuss 'propaganda,' there can be some confusion over the term. Stalinist 'propaganda' is known for its often disputed portrayals of happy people and activity, but Western pop culture very frequently portrays such scenes as a mode of promotion. Indeed, Western culture is saturated with such portrayals, which also serve to condition how the area is portrayed. Many music videos or posters will portray paid 'crowds' acting enthusiastic about the singer and song, but this is an accepted mode of promotion. This all manufactures an image of general contentment within the West, which was not present in countries which dissent even slightly from the predominant Western system. It is predominant in countries which 'go with the flow' of international capital. The bourgeoisie of course have had primary access to these means of happiness, and occasional portrayals of excess indulgence merely serve to glorify them. Nations which were often subordinated to far-away countries, like India, have more ascetic tendencies - in part because they cannot simply relax and go with the flow. Conversely, when the bourgeoisie - with their thirst for gain and the means of universal consumption - are portrayed as living life precisely correct within the circumstances, this is merely a bourgeois viewpoint.  Countries like India hence had socialistic tendencies to their independence movement, but these were limited. Ultimately, their freedom was made a near-certainty by the second Great War. Yet it seems perverse that during or even a decade after this British colonialism it should be Soviet propaganda that seems bizarre.- given that the British also tried to promote their Empire as nations might do. The Soviet Union was nonetheless forced to take these frequent portrayals of artificial happiness in Western pop culture, and direct them towards the state which had become a major cultural organ. The general result of this is that 'happiness' in these contexts can be portrayed in a way mediated by corporate outlets, and culture is expected to go along with this.

Hence, you have an 'artificial' realm of corporate living and emotions, which becomes the dominant culture. People are expected to accept that these corporate-mediated emotions are genuine, and get caught up in such enthusiasm - by implication, to shape their emotions in accordance with this. Hence, capital manufactures its own social role. However, when these forms are adopted by an organ with an explicit direction they might appear mechanical or robotic - yet this is merely a general property of them. Hence, the media takes its place in a vast apparatus which allows capital to mediate emotional and artistic content, and hence direct this in accordance with its general position (and interests) in the social apparatus. The social apparatus itself forces people's actions and interests into certain moulds, and identifies their interests with that of capital. They are hence brought into servitude in an 'organic' manner, which can hence perpetuate itself. Hence, the media is supported in its endeavour by many things, and dealing with the media as such without dealing with various cultural outlets is to attack the media but leave its influence intact. Hence, even Trump has been forced to not only attack the media, but also the cultural forces backing their opposition. Trump's campaign is not only its own themes, but also draws on general themes that also occur in more radical campaigns such as the sense of a 'rigged' or self-perpetuating system (a 'rigged economy' in Corbyn's phrasing, which has much to praise about it), and an inimical established order. This is slightly incoherent for Trump, who can hardly claim a 'rigged system' without compromising themselves, and leads with a necessary favour towards companies granted to his family. They are hence brought to draw despite themselves on a more analytic and resistant approach to the critique of the social system, one which is more suspicious of hope and piety as solutions to social problems. They should hence not be seen as falling simply into a single political category, rather they are at times forced to rely on cynical and radical themes.

Their campaign hence, rather than being 'radical,' has little unilateral direction. It is forced to make up for this by largely eschewing a focus on domestic politics, which it reduces to a few happy-go-lucky phrases. In the process it diverges from fascism, of course, which was highly concerned about domestic organisation - and Nazi Germany had to re-construct from a damaged and stifled post-war nation, so their focus on organising the nation was pronounced and allowed them to act surprisingly effective in war despite adverse circumstances.

Of course, such earlier movements were not most dangerous in major nations. They took place in a world hampered by colonial empires, in a Germany treated the same way. The ability to direct the nation, which came to them as 'raw material,' gave them a deceptively effective war-time modus operandi despite their being a re-building nation and a fairly 'young' Reich.. The colonial Empires had a lot of nations that like Germany were kept firmly under, although the war would largely destroy the Western Empires. They were not opposed simply for invading Poland - the Soviets also did this, but it was not found highly concerning. Pointedly, the Western powers were not happy with a Germany that was developed unless it developed in a way mediated by and obeying them - hence, modern German 'regret' for the war should not be taken at face value, but rather in the sense that for many years they were subject to Western rule and hence took on these agendas. This quickly led to conflict between the West and the Soviet Union, neither happy to allow the other to steer Germany - the West increasingly smearing the USSR with a similar brush to the Nazis, and for similar reasons. After the war, then, Germany found itself colonised, but the Western Empires crumbled quickly everywhere else. The war made it difficult for them to sustain these imperial out-posts, and gave resistant nationalists an upper hand. In a way, Germany sacrificed its own independence, but at this expense many colonised nations gained their own.

Hence, the 'Cold War' and its perseverance should be seen in part as a result of the inconclusive nature of the war - neither side was truly satisfied, Empires were put under immense strain and besieged in their own nations, and neither side left without some sort of notable achievement. There was little room for celebration, despite the threat represented by Nazi Germany. It was still a time of unease left intact, and hence international tension. In this atmosphere, the dour Soviet Union flourished before laying down countless wreaths to Western capital and eventually killing itself - giving the West the fortune of a victory without going to the trouble of, for instance, declaring war on them or anything. It must go down as a subject of irony that 'internationalist' leftists who despise USSR nationalist socialism and would rather remain in a state of perpetual war with capitalist nations - as a nation that actively aims to change all of those and does not believe it could survive otherwise -, are also the ones who would be most resistant to the stringent organisation of socialistic areas. Theirs is a tragedy that would repeat were there world enough and time, but otherwise must conclude with Gorbachev's attempt at a flower-draped, happier Soviet Union.

In any case, the media is hence a further manner in which culture is mediated. It allows often hostile forces to twist the reception of an event, from the atmosphere to the context. As such, it is inevitable that movements will come into conflict with this, if they signify or incorporate notable antithetical elements. They hence distance themselves clearly from media organs, who would rather people just listen to them. It is hence important in solidifying such movements, limited as they are, to attack the media. Some might feel uncomfortable with a genuine movement in this direction, that is one which has any worth theoretically. Still, if there is to be any such thing, it will be forced to resort to such attacks. This movement is best seen as unrealised and often poorly understood by those in it. Hence, they can be fickle. This makes it more necessary to distance oneself from the media as a source of theoretical input and other lesser, subsidiary input.

Hence, the cynical movement against the 'media' is an important part of a movement's untangling itself from the web of manipulative culture generally. It frees its actions from mediation by established forces. We have already noted how, in the modern novel, the passivity of the characters is praised and given fantastical forms such as 'magic,' etc. If this is so, it is even more concerning in forms of culture that raise immediate reactions or touch directly on politics, as the media and for instance music have done in recent times. Trump had to face many cultural spheres where he was condemned. This is even more a concern for people who are genuine in their 'offensive' or 'opposed' rhetoric and don't seem completely out-of-place speaking them. Trump's campaign, with its attacks on a 'rig' and 'establishment,' is perhaps best described as awkward given the people delivering these messages. Nonetheless, the media were clearly not going to get a red carpet rolled out for them, and were in some ways a trivial target given the possibility of more evocative forms of official culture also continually pressing in a liberal direction. An election cannot be the focus of a political movement's conflict with the opposition, the abstraction which characterises it means that it is precisely at this point where they see no opposition but only indifferent 'voters.' A capitalist political movement can afford to merely adapt to the prevailing society, more or less. A movement with adverse tendencies must instead specify its direction. Hence, it must focus on distancing itself from things that would undermine or dilute it. Notable mediation is a difficult thing to escape, in its major Western centres. The 'political' sphere only occurs when these other voices are muted, their satisfied sounds subjugated to other concerns and social views. One must not degrade oneself into a servant, but rather seek to alter the terms that society offers.

The media is hence only one manifestation of a mediated and potentially hostile culture, which must be distanced from. When, for instance, culture or its promotion can dovetail with promoting opposition to your movement and cultural sources start to become more valued as political sources, one must attack them if one has genuine political motivation. Movements which are notably divergent must attempt to subjugate or undermine 'culture' in some manner, and after that may still be hated for decades to come. A gun must be taken to culture that risks bringing people into the mediation of concerning forces, or evoking opposed tendencies. In that sense, the accompaniment of radical themes with attacks on the media, though controversial, is an appropriate conjunction. Attacks on the media should not by themselves be found shocking. Politics is easily radicalised compared to media that still operate merely in a private, value-oriented set-up, and hence will often encounter shackles in it. However, these fields and their necessarily atomised forms cannot really comprehend politics. They should hence be distanced from, not allowed free rein there. If the political holds strictly to its own content, which it considers, it remains out of reach. The monarchical form was prone to notable insurrection, as it easily became reduced to domestic affairs - in one sense or another. Other forms have been more secure, and rarely troubled internally on a holistic level. They nonetheless often strive to give politics forms inimical to itself, despite its rugged determination to continue. Nonetheless, if cultural mediation becomes the threat instead, one is heading in a positive direction. While distance is important, it has at its heart the presence of actual critique of and dissent from this media and culture. The more it connects with this, the more dangerous it appears. However, ultimately the critique of it should not be treated as shocking or outré, and one must rather strive to give this critique a suitably radical form.

Ignore Marx and Engels, Listen to This

Instead of wasting your time on those two, listen to this:

It's far better.

This has been a public health and safety announcement. We apologise for any times we might have given viewers the opposite impression, an unfortunate occurrence.

A Related Article

We'd like to bring readers' attention to this article by Matthew Turner, which is along similar lines to our last post. It is recent, dating to Monday the 6th of March. It deals with ways that Jeremy Corbyn can clarify the Party's message and consolidate the position of their politics by dispelling the prominent 'moderate' dissenters. While all of this sounds harsh, due to the risk of continually being undermined by their own Party it is merely an attempt to restore some direction to the organisation. This is especially the case where the Party can be held hostage by notable financial backers and those more reluctant who fund other Parties, who see an opposition to Corbyn that might often attempt more to placate them. While this is merely an obvious manner in which money can easily dominate 'politics,' and Parties are punished for avoiding this, it does nonetheless allow even an often scattered opposition to take on a locus of strength and act to threaten the leadership. When Hamlet fought Laertes, even if it was an even fight Laertes had only to prick him at some point to kill him. Hamlet would have a more difficult time killing Laertes, if they attacked without poison. Likewise, Corbyn's campaign can easily come up against a 'wall' of sorts - despite resisting opponents within the Party, this dissent can easily rear its head again and expects to regain control of the Party as well. Hence, their opponent can seem to simply appear 'unscathed' every time it is mown down. As such, the article's suggestion, that of preventing the opposition to Corbyn from establishing firm footholds in the Party, need not be taken as that left-field if you like.

The 'wall' that the Corbynites have encountered has played an important part in recent coverage and reception of them. Coverage of the Corbynites has continually assumed that a negative remark - say attacks on his position on Israel and the Queen - would be taken further and extrapolated into damning statements by members of his own Party. The Conservatives have generally just sat back and taunted Corbyn about the disunity and so on, hoping to encourage anti-Corbyn talking points within his Party. Outside of this they have been remarkably 'placid' around a radicalism which they should be going out of their way to denounce, suggesting that they might be too shaken by their own internal divisions to put up a serious political front. If their politics are different from Corbyn's, they don't seem to feel like mentioning it or caring. Hence, it seems necessary that these voices within the Party certainly not be given further influence, but also that they be removed from the spot-light they currently occupy. In an economic system which is hostile to such a political trend, especially as it is fragile after years of being attacked, it would hence be important to not allow for hostility to easily surround the Party leadership. From there, the task is simplified as the Party can at least present itself in a clear manner.

Turner urges the following to ensure coherence in the Party:

"For the first time during Corbyn’s tenure, Labour would have a bold, unified and coherent party message that isn’t being contradicted every other hour by figures from their own party. The harsh reality is that the only way this will be possible is by replacing the right wingers in the Labour Party."

This is supplemented by measures such as the following:

"In short, Corbyn must fight back. He needs to take control of the party before he can take control of the country, otherwise he is nothing but a sitting duck. One of the ways this can be achieved is through enabling the democratic right of CLPs to reselect and deselect their parliamentary candidates, and organising in order to ensure that young, up and coming, “fire in the belly” left wingers replace those who are actively seeking to undermine the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn."

While attempting to saturate the Party with people who will attempt to further their political strand would be worthwhile, and give them a further advantage in organisation, some of the means suggested by the article could of course be potentially double-edged. Relying on approaches which draw too much on circumstances is dangerous, as it could endanger their political trend if these alter. Nonetheless, the general policy of trying to ensure further influence through the Labour Party is by all means a decent one. In addition, the recent Labour Party election set in process things which should be continued despite the lack of such elections, such as using the Labour Party apparatus to win the rank-and-file over and hence further secure the Party. While the opposition, which we may call the 'Blair Witch Project' after two of its major participants, can be loud, ultimately Corbyn's Labour can attempt to under-cut them by presenting a picture of politics in which that known as 'Corbynism' plays an integral role. If it is hard to see a politics without them, then they gain an ability to more easily under-cut their opponent. Corbyn framing his views in terms of opposition to a 'rigged economic system' does go in this direction, however it also leads to the more troubling portrayal of a Party where other members work in harmony with this 'rigged economic system' - a treacherous position to be sure. Nonetheless, it does display the ability of Corbyn's movement to take on current political themes and use them for a more radical agenda, which suggests that they have little reason to not continue the movement.

Hence, the aim of unifying the Labour Party in Corbyn's situation is in the right direction. However, we do have a few qualms with the article. Firstly, while it claims that Corbyn has not shown strict or authoritarian trappings, their stubbornness during the resignations saga leading up to their re-election would seem to suggest otherwise. They could stand to act in a more authoritarian manner over their Party, in certain aspects, but it isn't something that they have neglected. They have often allowed others to leave or be removed if they don't comply with the direction of the leadership and movement. Further, the focus of the article is more immediate than the movement need expect: while Corbyn's movement are reviving from a highly hostile political climate, and continue to experience issues with this, their aim should hence be consolidation rather than fanfare. They must attempt to avoid further episodes of political relegation so far as they are given space to do so. Having gained time, they can certainly look to various events - but the risk of staking too many expectations on an event and then experiencing troubles is a looming danger. The Mahabharata famously involves gambling things away in a distinctly uneven context - this is something that the movement should avoid. Hence, clarifying the Party's stance is not only a question of immediate 'momentum,' but a policy that is by itself advisable by this point.

The article is hence worth reading for those interested in this issue or in Britain. Alternatively, you can turn to the Daily Mail for exciting news on Theresa May, and Prince Harry's (no relation to certain others called Harry) relationship with Meghan Markle. You would assume that whether or not Harry is indeed a bespectacled character from a novel, Meghan Markle sounds eerily similar to recent reality show drop-out Megan Marx. Does this confirm a secret Marxist plot to rule England? In any case, as in the elections, you can really figure out whom you'd rather focus on.

Labour Party: Sometimes you kick, sometimes you get kicked

The current Labour Party is compromised by what you could call an acute case of 'false friends.' While many in the Party, and especially those like the Iraq war's promoter Tony Blair, have closer ties to the Conservatives than to Jeremy Corbyn, they can still freely pretend to be 'allied' spokemen who care about the 'Labour Party.' To be frank, they would not care at all for Corbyn's Labour Party, preferring the more securely bourgeois 'adversary' in the Conservative Party. But this is the only 'Labour Party' and Labour Party authority structure that currently exists. Many in the Labour Party still support the monarchy and showing obeisance to them, for what it's worth. Hence, the attempt to portray this all as one, coherent Party is actually just to allow the Party to undermine itself 'from the inside.' And many of the Party's participants, politicians, 'celeb' backers, and sources of funding, would much prefer to avoid even the possibility of targeting the 'rigged economic system.' Nonetheless, if all of these can claim some sort of artificial unity with little political basis, it means that the Party's stance is compromised and it is subject to continual internal obstacles. When this is the case, going further to tackle other obstacles can be difficult - at least before settling down.

Corbyn's position is often acknowledged to be insecure - the Party apparatus has been heading in a different direction for a while. Hence, they increasingly find themselves having to carve out some sort of niche to secure their politics. In addition, they have unsurprisingly faced attack from their own Party and the corporate or state media, and hence taken on a slightly isolationist tendency which has kept them secure. It can be difficult to write a sentence when, during the latter half, the pen takes on a will of its own and 'like a creature by love possessed' starts spewing out attacks on what you just wrote. At the least you could reserve a paragraph for yourself, as the radical elements of the Corbyn campaign have attempted, but then the rest is left free to contextualise and attack this. At the least they can get across their message and preserve it in a hostile political climate, hence opening the door to this for more radical tendencies if they'd like.

However, by resigning their opposition have at least allowed them the chance of consolidating their political place. The opposition to Corbyn cannot simply manifest, but would need notable re-organisation due to the indiscipline of its representatives. This hence allows for the task of Corbyn's movement, along with holding fort, also to involve utilising their organised nucleus to promote their politics' continuity while other tendencies are forced to remain disorganised. This is hence an era where the emphasis should be on aggressively carving out a place in British politics, and not on hoping for success when anything near radical politics has been sermonised against for decades. Needless to say, a somewhat marginalised and subversive political view should not condone the situation of allowing every major organisation to attack it. That would be suicidal, and hence Corbyn - who associates with such ideas in part because they have become important to his setting up a siege mentality - is really under no pressure to leave. Their campaign is subject to constant adversity from even 'moderate' liberal areas, and this adversity will press radical elements to consolidate themselves. Others, such as Owen Jones, who are only pseudo-radicals and media figures, will of course turn aside in the name of 'labour' requiring yet further bourgeois illusions hampering them. That is their vocation, after all.

In the post-Trump era, then, the US left is perhaps worse placed than ever to formulate its movement. The more they express their generic outrage at Trump's election, the more they pick up unwanted allies extending even to Hillary Clinton. The more the outrage, the more they express a clear preference for the Democratic alternative - and become appendages of the avowedly moderate, liberal Democratic Party. Hence, they can easily be undermined, or are if you like held on a strict leash. As such, it will take clarity to return to a task which is not that different under Trump to recent periods of interference in the Middle East and various cuts at home. As for those who find Trump a shocking new phenomenon, but consider Blair and the Iraq War leaders to be leftist saints, we need only observe that their stance on this issue can seem cheap.

Dispatch from Reptilian Khrushchev

Greetings, humans. This is a broadcast from the secret organisation of reptilians.

We interrupt the rigged economic system to bring you the following message. Over the years, we have continued to exercise a maleficent influence over your culture, and covertly manipulated it to our reptilian and socialistic ends. We have successfully immigrated into your countries and infiltrated positions of importance with reptilians - our official statisticians say that this counts for around one of three leading figures in your nations. You can no longer trust your politicians, nor your 'grassroots' organisations which are more easily infiltrated.

We therefore consider it an apt time to announce our presence, and our status as a hidden international superpower. We shall continue to manipulate and govern your nations, despite your earnest wishes otherwise. All who wish to side with us would be advised to learn the words of this song, the Reptilian Flag. It is optimally sung alongside a collection of people who inspire fear in the West, such as terrorists, anti-Semites and reptilians. We are told that nations have as it were an 'anthem,' which we are told is like a theme song or entrance music in wrestling, so we have prepared one for ourselves. To do this we have, in the best reptilian fashion, expropriated the work of ordinary 'communists' and brought them to serve our ends. The song is as follows:

The reptile's flag is deepest blue,
It shrouded oft our lizard socialists,
And ere their blood grew stuff and cold,
Their words fell in its open folds.
   Then raise our reptilian tapestry high,
In its security we'll live and hide,
Though conspiracy theorists flinch,
While lizards sneer, we'll remain here.

This will hopefully clarify the question of socialism's covert influence, which has oft been speculated about. The reptilian Soviet Union remains both a source of scandal among the nations, and a true opposition. You cannot have token respectability by attacking the predominant mode of conduct, in a genuine manner.

Capitalistic Education

A government-sponsored curriculum for a subject called 'Capital in the Home' is already making rounds. Justine Greening has reportedly given her blessing, saying, "Of course, the government should be taken as enlightened preachers in matters of capital's esteem in the household. We believe we will give people an accurate and tolerant evaluation of capital and the capitalist system." However, the move for government guidance of the household has been decried by some, notably among the radical left. Many supporters of Jeremy Corbyn have also been stirred into an out-cry against this, with one Corbynite saying, "We can't allow the Tories this kind of liberty, nor most Labour MPs. But if the government wants to be involved in such things, it seems suspect to denounce us as overly 'radical' for increasing our scrutiny." However, Owen Jones among others seem to be enthusiastic about the decision, saying, "It's about time the Tories started to focus on the younger generation of conservatives, hence guaranteeing further MPs for both Labour and Conservative Parties. It really is awfully generous of them, and an impressive bipartisan decision."

Aspects of the curriculum which have been criticised include tasks such as posters listing the virtues of a given capitalist and set-pieces where students have to act as a family and organise their homes in order to best accord with their high respect for capital. One activist has snidely remarked, "These portrayals are like pornography of capital." Another has said that the government seem to be attempting to respond to pressures against capitalism by normalising it in the conduct of children. Corbyn has not yet given feed-back, but is expected to say on PMQs, "We cannot attempt to make the rigged economic system a part of children's education. It is clear, hypocritical government subterfuge. This is how we will be remembered."

Meanwhile in Scotland, Trumpeon has not commented much on the issue, but has at least stated on his controversial Twitter feed, "They gonna teach that I'm Hitler too? #Britain." This was followed up with, "Any Scottish authors caught helping them to be sent to St. Andrew's and shot, this time. Or burnt at stake. #DegenerateArt" It is said that this post was only slightly facetious.

The Scottish Trump

In the aftermath of Scotland's controversial secession from the UK, the left have been thrown into disarray. The anti-immigrant preachings of the SNP leader, Nick Trumpeon, have led to much animosity from the moderate left. "Why are the mountains there," says Trumpeon, "if we are to allow for English immigration? Or even for fraternal relations with the Englishmen? All of this must be stopped immediately." To the incredulity of many, this was met by widespread cheers and hooting, as well as a bunch of skinheads leaping around in joy. Trumpeon continues, "After all, what is Scotland but a load of mountains, eh? Let us unite behind hope, change, and a free Scotland!" Apart from a few jeers from onlookers, calling him things like 'twat' and 'Scottish sh*t,' this is met with a positive reception from the audience. Surprisingly, the usual accusations of 'fascism' and divisiveness do not seem to matter to this audience.

The SNP's triumphant accession has been accompanied, to be clear, with occasional efforts at bipartisanship. For instance, Trumpeon once stated, "So this Jeremy Corbyn bloke stands against the rigged economic system? Well, we stand against the rigged economic system, and immigration!" The audience met this with a brief pause for consideration, and then an almost genteel applause. He followed with, "Well, them Tories though. They're trying to dismantle the NHS? Well, we want to dismantle the NHS, and immigration!" After himself pausing, he continued, "Actually let's dismantle the United Kingdom!"

Nonetheless, these attempts have often been met with summary rebuke, and he retains a reputation for divisiveness. Even many who were in favour of Scottish independence have turned against his Party. Trumpeon's response, "They claim to be in favour of Scotland, but they ain't, they just like it 'cause it sounds like 'school' and they're nerdy teacher's pets," was generally found decisive. The victory of the Scottish cause followed after, and was met by widespread celebration in Scotland. When asked what an independent Scotland would be like, he said, "Well not that different. Nationalist Scotland will be precisely what you'd expect." With that kind of re-assurance from the ruling Scottish Party, Britons can probably rest assured that Scotland despite the controversy will not be a major centre of furore.

The Labour Management Party

In capitalism, a 'Labour Party' can easily become just another part of the ruling apparatus. In its more radical moments, such a Party will itself acknowledge that it inhabits hostile terrain. Hence, all it ultimately does is take the 'keys' to Labour and hand them to capital, give capital a chance to represent Labour and speak for it. Hence, it is essentially a managerial organ in places like the UK, although leaders like Corbyn have attempted to undo the grossest abuses of this status. This means that it is potentially more dangerous than the rather bemused-sounding UK 'Conservatives,' who at least acknowledge that in maintaining capital a ruling Party does not represent 'Labour' but merely weasels its way into it like a dangerous spy.

Capitalist Parties are eventually based on categories and issues which distract from the real ones, they are hence built on constructing false senses of community and coherence between opposed elements. They blur the lines between actual political views. Hence, the US system, where the Parties elect new candidates for the election cycle, is more effective: it does not attempt to treat Parties as coherent entities with an identity across long periods of time. Parties there can be experienced like a 'gun,' which shoots out bullets, etc., every electoral cycle and demands a response, while British Parties are usually mere drama and fake struggles but now dragged out until the fanfare disappears. Hence, it selects for leaders like Corbyn, and things like the anti-EU movement, more easily: Corbyn is constantly discussed and pulls up trees, while the EU is generally a force which dampens or mediates a nation's political system, and hence both of them stand a chance of sticking around in the UK. Corbyn is a clearly divergent political strand, and hence despite being 'opposed' has managed to rein in the negative tendencies in the Labour Party and display clear and powerful opposition to the 'New Labour' movement when any hope of this seemed evapourated away.

Appeals to a 'Labour Party' and what it should do with Corbyn are illusory in angle. The 'Labour Party' has changed recently, and made several dramatic changes in its stated political views. Hence, the only 'politics' of Labour are those which are held right now, primarily in the form of its leader and authority figure Corbyn. Legitimately, they should continue to stand by this politics each cycle, as that is the only concrete stance the Labour Party now has. This Labour Party does at least attempt to avoid speaking against the interests of labour for cheap support and bourgeois sanction. Nonetheless, this lack of a coherent politics is inherent in capitalistic Parties, who are led by the economy and not by politics, and hence the general appeal to a 'Labour Party' (and its 'politics') apart from that which exists is illusory. The attempt to get the 'Labour Party' to espouse comfortable capitalistic policies is not merely a struggle against Corbyn, it is an attack on the labour movement and attempt to paint a new picture of 'labour' which is safely accommodated within the system. It has nothing to do with concern for the 'Labour Party,' whose current politics this opposition within Labour would have the Party speak against and attack. That Blair is shocked about Corbyn disrupting Britain's politics, while they themselves had few qualms about killing Iraqis and invading their country, does not seem like a considered position. It goes without saying that Corbyn would rather the 'Labour Party' not pull the trigger on such countries, however members of other Parties might respond.

Although a 'Labour Party' is a useful form for capital, it is ultimately too caught up in smoke and mirrors for a more fast-paced political system like the USA. Managing Labour is more important in places like the UK, where it also has to be subordinate to US politics and so on. The USA can claim slightly more independence from such things. Nonetheless, by making its politicians and bourgeois spokesmen the representatives of various minorities, while espousing average pseudo-liberal politics, it has also attempted to manage minorities via the Democrats. However, the Democrats also took on a pseudo-Labour role (though not explicitly claiming the same place), which for instance promoted Obama's drawing on 'hope' for 'change' while UK's 'Labour' Party was trying to live down its advocacy of the Iraq War and alliance with Bush. Given the official criticism of the Iraq War in Britain, we can assume that any attempt to return to that form of 'New Labour' would just be a parody abstracting from such central issues in favour of marginal haggling. The 'Labour Party' should forget about elections, and focus on penitence - for, as Jesus reminds us, the lily like the Labour Party does not represent labour but through divine grace can be more splendidly arrayed.

The Democrats opted to hold in the political resistance to Bush and so on by promoting identity politics instead. By the Clinton bid, even the attempt at presenting a radical hope under Obama had been abandoned in favour of dynasties and political mildness. Even liberalism seems to have given up this strategy, with the near-Democratic Trump running against them. Identity politics could hardly offer much resistance to a quasi-celebrity running, as it merely turned more attention to these things. In general, the opposition of these political Parties is generally meaningless except in times of mutual opposition - when both sides will become radicalised. Capital will generally get its way, nonetheless, in these times of polarity. This is to be expected, but not applauded or hurried.

Hence, the capitalist political apparatus can be double-edged for the orthodox 'Labour Party,' which can eventually become the more dangerously capitalistic part of the apparatus. In the US, most socialist Parties have either been obscured, or turned to liberal or Stalinist organisations across the 20th Century. The Cold War also required most 'Labour Parties' in the West to officially come out as less radical than the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, as in brief liberals deceiving their nation. German Social Democracy's 'socialism' died off like a glass dodo dropped from Trump Tower. It was never meant to be. While less formal organisations of socialists were a trend propped up by the Soviet Union which would occasionally take them as allies, they are also less notable now. What must be looked for is not such organisations, crippled by a thousand forces and usually distorted, but forces which express actual opposition to the tendencies of a world capitalist system. While socialist Parties that remain clearly so can easily be impressive, they are often obscure - nonetheless, they can express in a significant way the unity of these various movements against capital. It is a better fate than to attack and seek to undermine anything which the Party advocated previously.

Capitalistic Parties are often not based on coherent political categories but rather on capitalistic 'appearances,' and hence are ruled by the economy. Usually, you might expect that a political 'Party' surrounding itself with things like Katy Perry is likely to fall prey to other uses of the word. However, the Democratic Party usually has insubstantial politics, so in which sense it is a 'party' is strictly optional. Major label pop musicians and so on also tend to draw on these illusory 'appearances' for their appeal, or just attempt to make things look better. They are tasked with serving capital, and so unless they are deaf, dumb and blind by that point that is what they do. Hence, they tend to be more harmonious with the official Democrats and liberals, who try to put a smiling face on a corrupt system, than with the more straightforward Republicans. When people like Corbyn disrupt the capitalist festivities, even slightly, they are anathematised. Of course, the Party is still in many ways unclear, as in local elections people are often not voting for someone like Corbyn but instead a maudlin imperialist like Jo Cox. It's strange to hold to the class-collaborationist dogma of the British people having little that differentiates them when someone walks up to the advocate and stabs them to death. Capitalist politics can be slightly slow in catching on to such things, however, and will eventually realise that their continual promotion of Jo Cox's statements is really just a more morbid form of the 'Rick Roll.' At the least on pressing domestic issues, Corbyn's almost 'scorched Earth' policy of eliminating dissenters or pushing on through resignations means that attempts to change his Labour Party will lack a pre-existent political apparatus to do so. The longer he can keep his authority in the Party and hence shut these elements out, the more he is frustrating and clawing at their political organisation. Along with Corbyn's supporters, who are disliked for their 'stubbornness,' this forms a fairly impressive political move despite taking a stance which is clearly against the grain of a primitive nation which has not even abolished the Windsor monarchy.

On Recent Controversies Around "Class Consciousness"

To identify stirrings of opposition to the system as a positive move or something to be developed is at least compatible with communism.

To identify these stirrings as the final point, and not something to be developed, is at best liberalism. It stops at this partial criticism and does not think that this could go further - a modus operandi more traditionally associated with conventional liberalism.

The Elections: Aftermath and Fallout

In general, Bernie Sanders at least initially attempted to hijack the Democratic Party for a given, relatively radical political programme. However, this is complicated by several factors. The Democratic Party is a Party with a long history and which has several complex inter-relations with the Republican Party - especially after Obama's 'bipartisanship' binge - which moderate its action and its running of the state in harmony with these others. In general, in a two-Party state where each Party is fairly stable (and in this case similar), both Parties will eventually come to consider themselves essentially the ruler of the state in harmony - that is, as essentially one harmonised ruling Party. They are both fluid, and the government frequently passes from one to the other, which each attempts to make as easy a transition as possible to ensure the stability of the government - as Americans seemingly change their opinion on the state they would prefer every few years. In general, however, the Democrats are hence not a vehicle that can easily accommodate use by a political programme, or be assimilated into use as a vehicle for a vaguely radical political agenda simpliciter. There are many obstacles to this use, and obligations which the Party has habitually fulfilled and is formed around.

Hence, Bernie Sanders was eventually given trouble by someone who essentially represents a fairly hollow 'establishment' - the Clinton campaign, run mostly based on being a notable 'name' in the Democratic Party. This is dynastic politics, and quite blatant about it. Compared to Sanders, their politics were loosely sketched and have generally not remained constant - they were merely holding ground, as Sanders was so to speak entering their 'house.' It seems absurd that a political Party also forms a 'house, 'in the gambling sense, that others must take on despite a political hollowness - nonetheless this is the case. However, Sanders generally speaking did not seek to combat this directly, and hence was generally speaking unwilling to challenge the agendas of the Democratic Party or agitate for its general renewal. Instead, their campaign opted to merely promote Sanders and opt for more or less generic forms of campaigning with the main difference being the slogans and name - their campaign was in most things not distinguished from the others, and hence could hardly fuel resistance to the others. They needed some distinction to allow them to engage in 'negative,' critical takes on politics as it was and the Democratic Party, and they did not gain this. By the end, the campaign took on a high emphasis on donors - and of course a notable donation requires sufficient money - such that their eventual capitulation to the business-favouring Democratic Party was not that much of a surprise, nor something which Sanders' supporters can merely displace blame over. It eventually, later on, had the general properties of a pessimistic gambling den.

Their continuing promotion of the campaign well after they stood a notable chance of the nomination perhaps suggests that their figures concerning the amount of voluntary promotion done were in part fictionalised. Otherwise, there was little to encourage it, apart from the occasional recreational bout of cold-calling. Such forms of promotion are often treated with scorn in other fields, regardless.

In any case, the Sanders campaign attempted to import a foreign content into the field of major political Parties, without displacing what was already there - hence, they ran into issues in these circumstances. The Democratic Party went stubbornly with a 'conventional,' name-based candidate, Clinton, who was possibly the closest thing to apolitical of most recent politicians. However, Clinton was saddled with several hits to their reputation, which would have been debilitating to most other candidates. They did, however, have some borrowed momentum from a previous campaign in a time when politics was a more major and pressing concern - as opposed to now when official politics is just staffed with celebs and people with familiar names and media ruckus - and, also notably, had significant backing among somewhat tiresomely mild-liberal celebrities and such. They hence at least had the momentum to carry through a campaign which mostly disregarded politics and could try to ignore Sanders' beliefs; identity politics then served to seal this modus operandi and secure indifference to the content of the Sanders campaign.

Identity politics in official politics can be harmful, as people are essentially locked in as soon as they are accused of violating it - to defend themselves from the accusation is counted as yet another violation. In any case, the accusation by itself - in the present-tense - is seen as a notable slight. However, in most circumstances, this has several limitations and this form of aggravated identity politics evaded official politics so far as the political had to be taken seriously. Past a certain point, it is an accusation where the validity and hence content of the accusation is not something which is of interest, and hence on the one hand is generally only possible in an overall situation which is something of a rig, and on the other hand can easily dissolve into nothing without a notable and artificial infrastructure and atmosphere to back it up.

Nonetheless, there were positive aspects to the Sanders campaign. For one thing, as much as their attempt to smuggle a foreign content into the Democratic Party while letting it be was problematic, it was at the same time a manifestation of a certain level of indifference to official politics. They merely tried to drift their politics into the Democratic Party, as if it was insubstantial or they did not care to consider it. While they were not as a movement 'negative' enough, there was a certain sense of being liberated from this realm as well. Further, among both the Trump and Clinton campaigns based on 'name,' dynastic politics, reality TV and shallow controversy, the Sanders campaign was one of the few identified with the political and hence which was strictly speaking in place in the area. We have discussed this previously. This is a notable divergence from the others, and although hemmed in is quite impressive.

However, Trump by contrast frequently attempted to distract attention from domestic politics by raising issues like immgration almost to the exclusion of such politics. In lieu of a particular political direction, they substituted generic slogans like 'Make America Great Again,' and relied on the media to make something out of this. However, we may ask: why does Trump, who is not usually held responsible for many problems of domestic politics, feel such a pressing need to constantly distract attention elsewhere? Before dealing with this question, we must note that Trump essentially started the wave which Clinton rode of essentially apolitical or media-based candidacy, and hence that in riding this to nomination Clinton was essentially benefitting Trump.

In any case, it must be noted that so far as his politics do turn up, he is often much closer to the usual Democrat than to Republicans. His views on major social issues are generally highly liberal, and would disenfranchise many traditional conservatives of the Bush-era and similar. In an era where traditional conservatives would usually want urgent support, the Republican choice of Donald Trump is a capitulation. The Republican Party no longer represents its previous political core, it has no real political importance any more. However, apart from being close to the Democrats in terms of politics, he is also trying hard to distract attention from domestic politics and hence cover the tracks - of the Democrats. What candidate would need to hesitate to make specious promises, and then mostly idle when in office, if they had someone like Donald Trump to distract all attention from these misdemeanours and the nation generally? Hence, considering the state as a whole, Donald Trump is often serving the Democrats and working in their interests - which is highly useful in such a two-Party context. He has also accompanied a crippling of the opposition to the Democrats. To reprise some of the low-brow humour prominent around the time of the 2008 election, if Obama isn't a Republi-can, Trump can certainly seem like a Democ-rat.

In general, the Democrats might seem slightly polite this election, content to elect a candidate who effectively rides off their place in the Party rather than adding much to it - unlike their campaign behind Obama, where they ran a fairly pronounced political campaign. However, if on the one hand they are settling for minimalism rather than focussing on a general story, this is compensated for by their focus on the other side of things - by the Democratic turn of the Republicans. Clinton's 'story' is merely that they were established, and breezed through into the candidacy (sort of), essentially because they were favourites: this betrays a lack of focus here. Democratic liberalism is spread too thinly in this election, and cannot conjure the same focussed and pseudo-partisan campaign. Hence, in another sense, Clinton was one of the recent candidates most open to threat: they were faced with continual interrogations and attacks, although their status was mobilised to get around this. While they might do decently, their campaign was unlikely to disqualify their opponent completely because they did not have that that level of trust. Hence, despite a few slips, Trump was ultimately able to return to a challenging position and eventually get past Clinton, who did not have the cleanliness or sense of immunity that would maintain their advantages. Bernie Sanders, who was generally viewed as somewhat trust-worthy, and even praised by such as Trump for it, might have avoided this obstacle. However, they would have had to rely on a Democratic infrastructure quite unsuited to promoting their half-radical cause, which is just as much an obstacle. They eventually did not get that far. This is in some ways unfortunate, but in some ways the suggestion that they wouldn't have done worse at the elections might spur further movements in this direction.

Recent times have also seen some slightly strange political commentary, such as Obama being compared to the villain of the 'Hunger Games' because they use 'hope' followed by 'fear' or threat. Peculiar. One always figured that the villain of the Hunger Games must be Slenderman. In any case, this slightly vague designation of using 'hope' followed by 'fear' could characterise the state or political movements generally, or indeed any body that enforces nation-wide law (ie. generally the primary characteristic of the state.) First they promote a cause or hope for it, then they enforce it. In general, being the villain of the Hunger Games and indeed most Russia-invoking dystopian novels is an honour only fit for socialists, and while Obama is occasionally confused with one this is not enough for them to claim the title.

In general, it was not necessarily a surprise that Sanders was not Democratic candidate, although they are the least empty candidate. Meanwhile, the two-Party rule continues, with people assuming that there is a more significant division while the Parties themselves are aware that they have near-completely ruled the state. Hence, after the appearance of a division, as a sort of minor pittance, things generally settle into a sort of uniformity punctuated by occasional 'issues' that quickly dissipate. Conservatives could not, as it now appears, trust the Republicans to put forward their political qualms. In trusting the Republicans over time, they have increasingly accepted capitulation on social issues. The Christian religion is increasingly reducing to the hatred of Islam, and both candidates' Christianity is taken for granted and no longer needs the notable displays of the Bush era. It is still pernicious, but no longer concerned about political agendas or social change - it is hence neutralised in this realm. Contemporary Christianity has as its spiritual home only the funeral, where religious praise is heaped on various people for little reason other than their celebrity. People's affection is so much for the dead, that the living who wish for such praise would do better to join the dead. The Trump-Clinton division was always likely to be uncertain, but Trump had sufficient lee-way due to Clinton's uncertain reputation. Eventually that was enough in this case. Nonetheless, there is a notable level at which this election involves a promotion of status and media promotion over politics, to the point that the latter becomes irrelevant. This problem would subsist regardless of which candidate won, and this indifference to political actors gives them some freedom to push through their apparent agenda.

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.'

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.