US Politics: The Nation of the Fad

Some pop singers have more longevity than American Presidents.

American politics is the manufacturing of fads.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Trump Presidency

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

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

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

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

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

Anyway, more pressing matters.

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

People should do something about this.

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

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

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

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

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

VI.

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

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

General and Particular

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

De Leonism and What's Left

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

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

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

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

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

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

On The Organisation of Nations in War

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Organisation of Capitalist Politics

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

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

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

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

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

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