On Hamiltonian Federalism and Friedrich Nietzsche (Pt. I of III)

Beyond ‘Good Revolutionary’ and ‘Evil Reformist’

Aphorism 153: “What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil.”

Aphorism 156: “Madness is something rare in individuals — but in groups, parties, peoples, epochs it is the rule.”

Friedrich Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, ca. 1886

It should be self-evident by now that the SMP Compendium adheres to the Intents of Command and Obedience through word and action. Command and Obedience, unlike the Incentives of Supply and Demand, has “Direct Orders” with Explicit/Implicit Intents and Obligations, Duties and Rights. There is an Implicit Intent as to why my discussions of Socialism on this Blog pertain to Oswald Spengler’s Prussianism and Socialism and Ernst Jünger’s “Total Mobilization” and Der Arbeiter. In essence, any application of the Work-Standard must always abide by the rule of law. This is a matter of Command Responsibility for all Socialisms, whether that is Prussian Socialism, German Socialism or even Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism in these United States. Every superior is responsible for every command that they had issued to their subordinates; every subordinate is responsible for every command that they had given to their superiors.

Spengler wrote Chapter 1 of Prussianism and Socialism in disgust over the ongoing dialectic posed by the thesis of Rosa Luxembourg’s book, Social Reform or Revolution. Luxembourg, I should mention, was one of the plotters behind the “November Revolution” that Spengler mentioned throughout his treatise. It is ridiculous that there is still this ongoing debate over Social Reform or Revolution among Marxist Socialists because the term “Democratic Socialism” in American and broader Western politics emerged in response to such idiocy.

It has often been asked by all kinds of people on legal, moral, ethical, philosophical and practical grounds about this dialectic. The “reform-revolution dialectic” within Marxist Theory is irrelevant for the Work-Standard because it is a form of “Good and Evil” in the Nietzschean sense. The Work-Standard exists beyond this Good and Evil, determined to restore the “Good and Bad” once despoiled by Liberal Capitalist ideology. Seriously, is the term ‘Revolution’ supposed refer to the “American Revolution” or even the “French Revolution”, the latter of which was condemned by Alexander Hamilton and the Federalist Party? If the answer from any Socialist happens to be along the notions of Good and Evil, they have already proven to be unworthy of the Work-Standard.

Most Americans tend to forget that real scientists, political scientists and military scientists, engineers, computer scientists, economists and historians have written entire libraries of books, and academic journal articles about “Western Civilization’s Industrial Revolution,” the “Austrian School’s Marginalist Revolution,” the “US Military Revolution in Military Affairs,” and “CERN’s Digital Revolution.” The latter emerged in the 1970s and achieved infancy by the 1990s vis-à-vis the World Wide Web (WWW). Technology, in spite of its own hurdles, has proven itself to be more than capable of revolutionizing our world. The Work-Standard already bears technological implications of a “Revolution in Economic and Financial Affairs” by dint of its conception of “a Socialist Finance revolving around Arbeit and Geld, not Kapital and Schuld.”

The Work-Standard ceases to function as intended when implemented as “Monetary Reform” or “Financial Reform” like the Dodd-Frank Act, which was a Wall Street reform bill passed by Congress under President Barack Obama as a financial example of the freedom-security dialectic discussed in Der Arbeiter. I mean, just read the official title of Dodd-Frank:

An Act to promote the financial stability of the United States by improving accountability and transparency in the financial system, to end ‘too big to fail’, to protect the American taxpayer by ending bailouts, to protect consumers from abusive financial services practices, and for other purposes.

There should be no more ethical ambiguities about the significances of Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism in relation to the Work-Standard within the SMP Compendium, on the Blog and webpages of The Fourth Estate. Any and all seditious behaviors should be condemned, the Federal government allowed to curtail them. Any incitement of violence, any act of domestic terrorism, any act of insurrection will always be condemned as the historical textbook definition of perverting true Socialism. Hamiltonian Federalism demands every upstanding, law-abiding American Socialist to be swearing by an Oath of Office in front of their mirror each morning and realizing the grave seriousness of its Implicit Intents:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this Obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the Duties of the Office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

The secret behind how to distinguish these two very distinct forms of Revolution is a recurring theme within the pages of Der Arbeiter. One cannot read Der Arbeiter without coming away with the impression that Ernst Jünger wrote the whole book in a manner where Socialism is discussed from the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche.  

Let us begin with Nietzsche’s famous “The Parable of the Madman” from his 1882 book, Die fröhliche Wissenschaft (“The Gay Science” in English). It truly deserves to be called “The Parable of the [Revisionist]” because of its striking parallels to ‘Revisionism’ when applied in a Socialist context. In the Cold War and in Marxist Theory, Revisionism refers to any Socialist rejecting Marxist Theory on grounds of practical politics, economics, ethics, philosophy, religious morality or else all of the above. Concepts like the “Surplus Value,” “Class Struggle,” “Dictatorship of the Proletariat,” and “Withering of the State” are all denounced as being impractical, unethical and even downright dangerous.

For any non-Marxist Socialist, to be called a ‘Revisionist’ by an actual Marxist is a pejorative. Or is it, if the SMP Compendium entry “CMEA’s Fixed Exchange Rates and its Hard Currency Shops” is anything to go by?

The Parable of the [Revisionist]

Haven’t you heard of that [Revisionist] who in the bright morning lit a lantern and ran around the [long lines of CMEA hard currency shops in Eastern Europe] crying incessantly, ‘I’m looking for [Marx]! I’m looking for [Karl Marx]!’ Since many of those who did not believe in [the joys of Neoliberalism] were [Marxist-Leninists] standing around together just then [in Solidarity], he caused great laughter. ‘Has he been lost [to senility like Leonid Brezhnev], then?’ asked one. Did he lose his way like [Nikita Khrushchev]? asked another. Or is he hiding [like Enver Hoxha and Josip Broz Tito]? Is he afraid of us [like Nikolai Bukharin]? Has he gone to sea [like Deng Xiaoping]? Emigrated [like Leon Trotsky]?  — Thus they shouted and laughed, one interrupting the other. The [Revisionist] jumped into their midst and pierced them with his [Anti-Reformist] eyes.

‘Where is [Marx]?’ he cried; I tell you! We have killed him — you and I! We are all his murderers. But how did we do this [in the 20th century]? How were we able to drink up the sea [of Western Kapital and Western Bloc consumer goods]? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire [USSR and Eastern Bloc counties]? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its [Socialist world order in the two World Wars, of which the Cold War was only a continuation of the Second]? Where is [the West] moving to now? Where are we moving to? Away from all [Socialisms]? Are we not continually falling? And backwards, sidewards, forwards, in all directions? Is there still an up and a down? Aren’t we straying as though through an infinite nothing? Isn’t empty space breathing at us? Hasn’t [this Cold War become] colder? Isn’t night and more night coming again and again?  Don’t lanterns have to be lit in the morning? Do we still hear nothing of the noise of the grave­diggers who are burying [Marxist Theory to save true Socialism]? Do we still smell nothing of the divine decomposition? — [Friedrich Engels], too, decompose! [Marx] is dead! [Marx] remains dead! And we have killed him! How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers! The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? With what water could we clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves [on every first day of May]? Is the magnitude of this deed not too great for us? Do we not ourselves have to become gods merely to appear worthy of it? There was never a greater deed – and whoever is born after us will on account of this deed belong to a higher history than all history up to now!’

Here the [Revisionist] fell silent and looked again at his listeners; they too were silent and looked at him disconcertedly. Finally he threw his lantern on the ground so that it broke into pieces and went out. ‘I come too early’, he then said; ‘my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder need time; the light of the stars needs time; deeds need time, even after they are done, in order to be seen and heard. This deed is still more remote to them than the remotest stars – and yet they have done it themselves! It is still recounted how on the same day the [Revisionist] forced his way into several [Communist Parties around the world] and there started singing his requiem aetemam [Lenin!] Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but, ‘What then are these [Parties] now if not the tombs and sepulchers of [the Lenin without Marxism]?’

Categories: Philosophy

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

2 replies


  1. Conservative Socialism: The Dialectics of “Reform vs. Revolution” and “Realm vs. Empire” – The Fourth Estate

Leave a Reply to muunyayo Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: