new post

A lot has happened in the world since my last posting. I won't waste time recalling the events but suffice to say that capitalism continues to bounce from crisis to crisis. Eventually we will reach a crisis that can not be coped with and will result in a fundamental shift in the capitalist system as we now know it. My view on the matter is that capitalism's effects on the environment; such as global climate change and the undervaluing of the natural world, will reach a point were dramatic changes to the climate and physical geography will create new areas of natural benefit to capital and cause a number of our current centers of capital to no longer be of importance. The resulting shifts of where capital can most easily and naturally be accrued will necessitate the confrontation of several if not all of the tenants of capitalism as social fabrics fray and or dissolve. With shifts in economic viability people will be inclined to search for the areas where they can at least continue to maintain their standard of living. Population shifts will necessitate the growth of new societies, this coupled with the shifting in economic standards and practices could potentially give rise to a new economic model that is distinct from the capitalist system. Historically Marx would have seen this as the end of the historical period of capitalism and the beginning of the next, which came to be called communism. However I would like to hold off on such labels as any talk of the future is suspect at best (look at your local weather person). It is possible that climate change could spell the end of capitalism but, capitalism is a very powerful system able to mobilize vast resources to overcome the obstacles in its way and it is likely that while climate change will force some alteration to the capitalist system, capitalism as a whole will not be extinguished. Historically we should look to the end of the feudal system the world over and the beginning of the development of capitalism, as that was the most recent construction of a new social-economic system. From that historical period and others we can better understand what to expect if capitalism starts to truly fail.

New Developments

Some sense of reason and sensibility have returned to the Italian people, court annuls Berlusconi immunity.

Distinctions

It is important to lay out some distinctions about Marxism. Marxism is a revolutionary theory, meaning that it is not a political ideology that should be exercised in governments. Yes I know that it is commonly held that the Communist Manifesto was written as the handbook for implementing Communism. However a reading of the Manifesto will reveal that in fact it is a simple summation of what is meant by; Communism, who the bourgeoisie and proletarian are, what the current situation of Capitalism is and what is the Communist party's role in History.

Communism is not something that can be forced on society. Forcing Communism ignores the basic structure of humanity, it would be a top down approach with the superstructure forcing change in economy, not change in the economy bringing change to the superstructure. Impatience and want to force the Revolution can be seen as the major failing of all so-called Communist governments but, although communistic governments failed to heed one of the basic tenets of Marxism they furthered the evolution of the theory into practice. Lenin was perhaps the first to recognize this disconnect with Marxist theory. To make sense of creating a Communist government, Lenin latched onto the idea of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. When the opportunity to overthrow a capitalist-bourgeois government is presented a Dictatorship of Proletariat should arise, take control of the means of production and enter the stage of socialism. Here is the philosophical genius of Lenin, the distinction between socialism and communism. Lenin defined socialism as the historical stage of transition between capitalism and communism, it occurs fully in the period of capitalism but prepares for the transition to communism. In this way Lenin avoided contradicting Marxism.

Communism has thus never existed nor should it within the Historical Now. Socialism can act a sort of place holder for the proletariat till the end of History and the Revolution but it should never be confused with communism.

To those who would point the collapse of the Soviet Union and the opening of China to capitalism as the failure of socialism, showing its inability to serve the proletariat and to function as a stable government, I would say this is ignorance of the facts and unwillingness to comprehend historical factors. On the surface yes, socialism failed but, was the Soviet Union and China's interpretation of socialism the only acceptable one... no. It is a generalization and oversimplification of socialism to claim that the USSR and China were the only countries able to define socialism. There is a political spectrum among the capitalist countries of the world and so by extension there is a political spectrum among socialist countries. The fall of the USSR, more appropriately, showed the inability of the political right within socialism to continue to evolve and change. One needs only to look at history to understand that forces of change eventually overcome reactionists. The opening of China is instead an attempt to preserve socialism not its death. China unlike the USSR is trying to evolve socialism parallel to the evolutions in capitalism thus preserving it, however China is still dominated by a conservative and right-wing approach to socialism.

Facism

The second of my current projects,looking at the rise of fascism and understanding its modern ancestors, right now is in the research phase. I am reading a collection of Leon Trotsky's writing on the rise of fascism in Germany. The book titled The Struggle Against Fascism in Germany covers Trotsky's writing from 1930 to 1940. Trotsky is much easier to read than Marx or Engels but this is mainly because he does not have to define the tenets of Marxism, instead he assumes the reader to be versed in the ideas and vocabulary of Marx. His assumption is are based on the audience for his writings which would have been the Communist Party of Germany and the International more generally. Trotsky's focus is not on a critique of Fascism, which is more in line with my goals, but on criticizing the Communist Party, Stalinism and laying out a path for the Party to achieve both the destruction of Fascism and achieving the Revolution in Germany. In the readings I have done so far Trotsky has already laid out some fundamental analysis of Fascism; the economic basis of the party, which is the petite bourgeoisie that is experiencing more of the hardships of capitalism than previously, its ability to attract poor and exploited workers (mainly because of the Stalinist bureaucracy's suppression of the ideology of revolution in favor of falling to the politics of the capitalist), and its policies of demonizing communists and even socialists. In his writings before the take over of the Nazis, Trotsky can clearly see that the policies of fascism will lead to defeat of the revolutionary classes and could lead to the complete destruction of communism in Germany. Therefore Trotsky continually tries to waken the communists to the threat of fascism.

Already the opening articles that I have read lead to some interesting insights into the modern rise of fascism. Focusing, for now, on the western world countries such as Italy, Russia and The United States are experiencing extreme nationalist movements that are essentially fascist if not outright claiming fascist heritage. As historically these movements are carried by a disaffected lower middle class funded by select members of the big bourgeoisie. They appeal to lower classes by using scare tactics that feed the fear that the current power structure will take away what little these lower classes have. The fascist have also begun to perfect what their socialist enemies have already done, which is to operate under the guise of democracy to legitimize their power in the world view, the primary example of this for fascists being Italy and for socialists Venezuela. The growth of fascism is some thing that deserves more studying, because with out a strong far left there is a limited list of early warning systems to stop the rise of another fascist state.

Tobacco

This is my original critique of tobacco that was done for a college course. It is almost a year old now and in the interim I have learned a lot but, I need to start somewhere.

During his life Marx was well aquatinted with tobacco, he was an avid pipe smoker (at that time it was the worker’s choice for tobacco consumption). At Marx’s death however tobacco had not reached mass consumption and production under the power of the cigarette. By applying a Marxist critique we can see how Marx and Marxists might view the cigarette and tobacco more generally.

It should be understood that as the cigarette is produced it alienates the worker from his labor especially with the advent of rolling machines which greatly increased the productive capabilities of each individual worker. The creation of the modern cigarette is deeply entrenched in the capitalist world. On its own the cigarette lends to the worker the characteristics of nicotine that is common to all tobacco products but is more efficient in doing so than other means of tobacco consumption. The characteristics of nicotine that are of prime use to the worker are; increased stamina, focus and lose of appetite. These characteristics allow a worker to produce more labor-time for the capitalist with less cost. The health detriments also benefit the capitalist; it allows him to get more labor out of worker with less chance of that worker surviving for a long period of time. In the end this increases the capital that the capitalist is gaining.

There is a second side of cigarette consumption and of tobacco in general which would be the culture of smoking. The ability of tobacco to bring people together and to facilitate open discussion has the added benefit for the worker of giving him time to plan the Revolution with other workers. In addition the worker will be more productive during this time because of the stimulating effect of nicotine than he would be if he was plotting the Revolution in his spare time on not a smoke break.

Cigarettes and tobacco can be seen from the Marxist view point to facilitate the Revolution by both increasing capital and by making efficient use of time for planning the Revolution.

I disagree that Marx would not approve of cigarettes; rather he would endorse their use. The use of tobacco creates a culture that transcends the bonds of class. It is true that there are still markers within this culture that denote class such as the way a person holds a cigarette; between the forefinger and thumb for the worker and forefinger and middle finger for the bourgeois. These markers though are the product of the capitalist economy which dictates society and culture.

Starting from this point I will update, expand and improve the critique into a full history of tobacco, or perhaps narrow the focus to just cigarettes.

what paths am I taking through the forest?

Currently I am doing research on two topics that I will feature in this blog along with other more general posting, one is more academic and serious the other is an intellectual exercise just for kicks. These topics are; an analysis of the rise of fascism in Germany during the 1930s to understand and serve as a base for interpreting the current return and growth of fascist and other far-right movements globally, and a less serious but still interesting marxist critique of tobacco. As I progress further in my research I will be updating on these topics. In addition as I mentioned I will also comment on current events as they occur and I might post on certain historical topics as well.

The beginning

Marxism is dead. The theory has been subverted by national governments that claim to follow a marxist-leninist doctrine. There will allows be a change in theory when it is put into practice but marxism is not a political practice, it is an idea a ideology that is based on the progression of History. To practice marixism ideology politically in the historical period of capitalism is not feasible. By claiming to put marxist ideology into practice currently, is only to subvert marx into a capitalist project. Marxism is a idea of the future not for the present capitalist stage of history. This does not mean that marxism should be completely forgotten and set aside because, in the history of the now marxism is the only ideology that allows people to critically analyze capitalism. So let everyone analyze and understand capitalism for what it is and were it will take humanity.