In my Readings of Prussianism and Socialism, I have insisted that Oswald Spengler’s arguments therein to be considered relevant in an American context. My justification for this pertains to the idea that Alexander Hamilton and the pro-Hamiltonian faction within the Federalist Party as having Prussian influences. Much has already been written about the Prussian role in helping the Americans gain their independence from the British during the Revolutionary War. And even more have also been written about the associations between Hamilton’s ideas and Friedrich List as having been an influence in the development of Prussian Socialism in the 19th century. What has yet to be written, however, is whether Synchronicity still exists between Hamiltonianism and Prussian Socialism in contemporary American contexts.
America, as many people living in other parts of the world are probably aware, is known for being under a Liberal Capitalist regime. Some many even be aware of the decades-old narrative about the Union not having its own form of Socialism. Both stemmed from Cold War propaganda that have since become a meme in the wake of the death of Bretton Woods and the end of the Cold War itself. Yet unbeknownst to most Americans and non-Americans alike is the fact that America’s Liberal Capitalist characteristics stem from the ideological tendencies of Thomas Jefferson and the Democratic-Republic Party. Today’s Democrats and Republicans, both whom took on their contemporary form in the American Civil War, inherited the outlook of the original Democratic-Republicans aligned with Jefferson.
“Jeffersonianism” goes under many different names: “Neoliberalism,” “Globalism” and “Libertarianism” to cite a few. Fluctuating between the dialectics of Isolationism and Internationalism, the overall aims of Jeffersonianism have remained constant over the centuries. The assertion of American hegemony over the Americas in the “Western Hemisphere” under the Monroe Doctrine and the imposition of an Empire of Liberty in Eurasia, the “Eastern Hemisphere.” The Democratic-Republicans, despite being two parties, achieved its goals after the Civil War over the course of the late 19th and late 20th centuries. The Spanish-American War provided the impetus for expanding into colonialism, while the two World Wars enabled American power to be projected into Eurasia in the interests of Liberal Capitalist forces and the financial interests backing them. The Cold War delayed the advancement of the Empire of Liberty, reaching the height of sheer hubris when the Soviet Union and Eastern Bloc collapsed.
Today, Jefferson’s Empire of Liberty goes under the appropriate designation as the “Liberal International Economic Order” (LIEO) or the “Liberal International Order.” Its overall stability has been undermined in light of a combination of crises since the beginning of the 21st century, ranging from the Dot-Com Bubble and 9/11 attacks to the Great Recession and the Coronavirus Pandemic. The recent, yet ongoing, spate of Economic Nationalism and Democratic Socialism (for what those two are worth) have fanned the growing dissent that accumulated for decades. Even if the Coronavirus Pandemic will not be the catalyst for political-economic change, it has demonstrated once more the follies of Liberal Capitalism.
Outside the United States, any and all Anti-American sentiments directed against the Union ought to be understood as being associated with Jeffersonianism and its influences on world affairs. The Union was never meant to be ruled under Jeffersonianism; it was supposed to have been governed by Hamiltonianism, as it was originally intended when the Union was formed. For it was Hamilton and the Federalist Party, not Jefferson and the Democratic-Republican Party, whose perceptual world-feeling resonate more with Socialism.
But inside the United States itself, the notion that more of the same Jeffersonian rhetoric about one-sided endeavors like “Supply-Side Economics” and another “New Deal” are pathetic and lame. The same is true for the notion that one can spend their existence on the Left-Right Political Spectrum. There is no such thing as “Left” and “Right”; there can only be Hamiltonianism and Socialism, Jeffersonianism and Liberal Capitalism.
The world-feeling among Americans toward Hamilton and the Federalist Party in recent years are a sign of growing Socialization by the American people. The hour of Jungian Synchronicity between Federalism and Socialism draws near with each passing year and every passing decade. The coming Synchronization will yield the fulfillment of “Federal Socialism,” where Federalism is taken from the American Right and Socialism is taken from the American Left. The greatness of Hamilton and the Federalist Party cannot be viewed in the Left-Right Political Spectrum. Enlightenment ideologies do not belong in the 21st century; they belong in the 19th century.
Federal Socialism will not be an instantaneous phenomenon, nor will it be achieved in the current contemporary political-economic climate. Rather, it is a gradual development that will eventually witness completion later in the 21st century. If there is going to be any hope in the realization of Federal Socialism, Hamiltonianism cannot afford to entertain any more compromises with Jeffersonianism and must realize that its understandings of financial and monetary policies can and will further Socialism in America and abroad. The Dasein, the Heideggerian “Being-There,” of Federal Socialism ought to be preserved.
Unlike all other forms of Socialism, including Prussian Socialism, Federal Socialism has the potential to revolutionize the old concepts of fiscal and monetary policies as well as alter the dynamics of the banking and finance. The methodology must change, but the core fundamentals that made Hamiltonianism so antithetical to Liberal Capitalism remain valid. The Work-Standard, which is the overriding topic of The Fourth Estate, is intended to assist Federal Socialism in achieving that end.
Federal Socialism does not have to rely on a Currency pegged to the monetization of Schuld (Debt/Guilt). Instead of the crude conversion process of Schuld into Kapital, the Work-Standard will facilitate the more refined process of converting Arbeit (Work) into Geld (Gift), creating a new conception of Currency that challenges Platonic Chartalism and Aristotelian Bimetallism. The Sovereign Schuld of the Union can no longer be sustained by an everlasting eternity of accumulating Schuld. There is a purpose behind me choosing to describe Debt as “Schuld” because Debt itself deserves to be seen the shameful borrowing beyond what can normally be sustained by the productive forces. It is far more than just the inability to pay back what is owed, but the problem of addressing the problem of Kapital as it exists.
No solution to the National Debt of the United States, its “Sovereign Schuld,” will ever be resolved through piecemeal reforms. This is not a simple problem that requires a signature on an Executive Order or a Parliamentarian motion within the halls of Congress. It will not come from foolish excuses like restoring the Gold Standard or Cryptocurrencies, reviving Bretton Woods, or doing more of the same. The problems are systemic insofar as they originated from the circumstances associated with the death of Bretton Woods and the economic and financial difficulties that manifested themselves in the decades that followed.
As I write this, I remain convinced that Federal Socialism is best-served by means of the Work-Standard. It is for these considerations that I will be delving into the topic of Hamiltonianism in relation to my research on the Work-Standard. Hamilton’s two Reports on Public Credit and Report on Manufacturers will be explored alongside his contributions to The Federalist Papers.
Categories: Compendium, Economic History, Philosophy, Politics
Reblogged this on muunyayo and commented:
Brilliant stuff here …