“Is [Scientific Socialism] merely a mistake of [Utopian Socialism]?
-Friedrich Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, or, How to Philosophize with a Hammer, ca. 1889
Or [Utopian Socialism] merely a mistake of [Scientific Socialism]?”
What did Nietzsche really mean when he wrote “God is dead?” He certainly did not mean for us to take that bold statement literally like what a Protestant Fundamentalist and an Orthodox Marxist would do on grounds of Sola Scriptura (Scripture Alone). Marxists have a bad habit of imitating the Protestants because there is some sort of reciprocal resentment shared between those two. It never made sense to me when I began researching and investigating the Work-Standard in 2011 and it will never make any more sense to me after completing the SMP Compendium in 2021. They take great offense whenever I remind them that their “God is dead.” The “God of Marxists” is Marxism itself; the “God of Protestants” is Protestantism itself. Anyone who interprets Marxism and Protestantism as they please can do so, but the Americanization of both often lacks the “spirit, the sense, the lessons” of true Socialism in America. I had complained about this in my readings of Der Arbeiter, specifically in Part VI and Part VII.
American political polarization in the three decades since the legal end of World War II in 1990 has become the egregiously notorious examples of what happens when “McCarthyism” and “Wokeism” become new-old Puritanisms, “American Socialism” and “American Federalism” as the new-old Witchcrafts for new-old Salem Witchcraft Trials and House Un-American Activities Committees.
There is an “Institutional Racism” in America that believes “Race is not a Social Construct by claiming how people have no souls, only bodies and minds. American Protestants, particularly those who become Nationalistic since the Trump presidency, have neither a materialistic future to look forward nor an idealistic past to look backward. American Communists, particularly those who become Socialistic since the Trump presidency, have neither an idealistic future to look forward nor a materialistic past to look backward. The deification of the body is the epitome of Materialism; the deification of the mind is the epitome of Idealism. Such is the Materialism and Idealism that defines Good and Evil in the Mind-Body Problem of Rene Descartes.
The more Hamiltonian, Prussian or Bolshevist the teenage angst of their own American youths become, the more likely they are going to realize that any and all notions of a “Protestant Marxism” (which became too consumerist for Americans like Ss. Elizabeth Ann Seton and Johann Neumann, Edward Bellamy, Thorstein Veblen, and Gore Vidal) was already crucified on a Cross of Gold at the height of the Gilded Age. Most Protestants in 19th century America used to have been as Socialistic as the Catholics, Mormons, and Anabaptists. Today, they have demonstrated their willingness to create a Cult of Personality around anyone who supports their Weltanschauung. And not just them: similar Personality Cults were being created since Bretton Woods. They have proven their determination to create Personality Cults around FDR and Reagan, Clinton and Obama, Trump and Sanders. An entire Blog post can be written about these people who gravitate to their Personality Cults and how they are counterproductive to American political statecraft and The Fourth Estate (the Nietzschean Proletariat, not the Fake News).
The Federal government of these United States has always been striving beyond those kinds of Good and Evil since the very beginning. The Federalist Party will only be resuscitated when it chooses to go beyond the Good and Evil of Kapital and Schuld, striving to restore America and the rest of the world to the Good and Bad defined by Meaningful Works and Meaningless Works. For Hamiltonianism is meant to be the Socialism of all Americans and not just one segment of the US population or their State. The Scientific Socialists described by Theodore Roosevelt in 1909 are Stalinists and Maoists striving to uphold Vladimir Lenin’s example by going beyond Good and Evil, beyond Internationalism and Isolationism, in order to stay relevant in the event of a Socialist world order. Even if the Soviets and the Eastern Bloc countries refused to accept this notion, their own domestic and foreign policies had already demonstrated to Hamiltonianism and the non-Marxist Socialisms of the world that Vladimir Lenin was not a Marxist, but a Nietzschean who advocated for the Eternal Recurrence of Hegelian philosophy and its pro-religious views.
Have I made any contradictory statements when I first began this Blog post, seeing how Nietzsche himself has had a consistent pattern of questioning so-called “Christianity?” Just what is that “Christianity” Nietzsche speaks of that is worthy of universal condemnation from the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church?” I am confident in my assertions that the Federalist Party, particularly the faction aligned with Alexander Hamilton, understood its implications. For them, the original ‘Death of God’ had coincided with the ascent of the “Goddess of Reason” in the Enlightenment.
But the Goddess of Reason is dead. Even “Marx is dead”–after all, Karl Marx did in fact pass away before finishing Das Kapital with Friedrich Engels, forcing Engels to complete the rest of that gigantic tome on his own. Das Kapital became a boring grind towards the end. This is an important observation in light of my own observations about Vladimir Lenin because unlike the SMP Compendium, Das Kapital discusses way too much about what everyone calls “Neoliberalism” and less about what will actually go beyond Kapital and Schuld. For once it was repeatedly clear that Kapital and Schuld are two halves that constitute a higher reality, it soon became inevitable on my part to envisage other possibilities where two seemingly contradictory pairs can be synthesized to create something entirely new. Nietzscheanism-Leninism may someday supersede “Marxism-Leninism” itself if a Socialist International Economic Order were to emerge.
“Federalist Fortune Wheel (2021)” contra “Pyatoe Koleso (1991)”
“What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you into your loneliest loneliness and say to you: ‘This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence – even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again, and you with it, speck of dust!’-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science, ca. 1882
Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: ‘You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine.’ If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you. The question in each and every thing, ‘Do you desire this once more and innumerable times more?’ would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight. Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?”
The morning sun ascends over the pond beyond my backyard when I first started working on the SMP Compendium in May 2021. I carefully pondered over whether Vladimir Lenin was supposed to have been this 20th century personification of “Zarathustra” from Nietzsche’s Also Sprach Zarathustra. There is not one doubt in my mind about this incontrovertible fact. I still believe that Lenin was not a Marxist. He was in fact a “Nietzschean” who, like Oswald Spengler himself, was talking about the decline of Western Civilization.
It has been thirty years since the fall of the Soviet Union and the Eastern Bloc countries. All kinds of questions on my mind for the past ten years. Was Russian Bolshevism supposed to have been “Nietzscheanism-Leninism” instead of Marxism-Leninism? Did Lenin descend from the Swiss mountains like Zarathustra himself to proclaim before the whole world why every Socialism on Earth is in dire need of new values and new meanings? “Was Lenin a Mushroom” according to Sergey Kurekhin or was he in reality Nietzsche’s Zarathustra?
In 1991, just months before the collapse of the USSR, Soviet audiences witnessed a shocking scene on television program Pyatoe Koleso (The Fifth Wheel). Two serious-looking men – Sergey Sholokhov, the host and his guest, an underground musician and writer introduced as “politician and actor” Sergey Kurekhin were sitting in a studio discussing the October revolution of 1917. Suddenly, Kurekhin offered a very interesting hypothesis – that Vladimir Lenin, the Bolshevik leader, was not a human being but a mushroom.
Kurekhin started with a rambling discourse on the nature of revolutions and his trip to Mexico where, in ancient temples, he had seen frescos closely resembling the events of 1917. From there, he moved on to the author Carlos Castaneda who described the practices of Central American Indians of using psychotropic drinks prepared from certain types of cacti.
“Apart from cacti, Castaneda describes mushrooms as special products with a hallucinogenic effect,” Kurekhin continued and then quoted Lenin’s letter to leading Marxist Georgi Plekhanov: “Yesterday I ate many mushrooms and felt marvelously well”. Noting that Russia’s fly-agaric mushroom has hallucinogenic effects, Kurekhin assumed that Lenin was consuming these kinds of mushrooms and had some kind of psychedelic, mind-altering experience.
It was not only Lenin who dabbled in such fungi, but other Bolsheviks as well, Kurekhin claimed. “The October revolution was made by people who had been consuming hallucinogenic mushrooms for years,” he said with a poker face. “And Lenin’s personality was replaced with that of a mushroom because fly-agaric identity is far stronger than a human one.” Therefore, he concluded, Lenin became a mushroom himself.
Contrary to Kurekhin, there are elements of Leninism which come across to me as Nietzschean.
Slave Morality defines the “Bourgeoisie.”
Master Morality defines the “Proletariat.”
The Good and Evil that must be condemned are “Kapital and Schuld.”
The Good and Bad that must be revisited are “Meaningful Work and Meaningless Work.”
Amor Fati embodies “Heroic Realism.”
Faith in the Earth governs the “Democratic Centralism” of a functioning Council Democracy.
The Übermensch (Overman) is the “Vanguard” or “Elite” of the Party.
The Blonde Bestie (Blonde Beast) is the “Premier” or “President” of the Party.
The Will-to-Power is total sum of “Communism” and the “Electrification of the Whole Country.”
The World Riddle is now the “World Revolution.”
The Eternal Recurrence encompasses everything about “Imperialism and Social Imperialism.”
God is Dead morphs into “Marx is Dead.”
Such bold rhetoric, if spoken in 1991, is the sort of spectacle which would have pleased everyday people oppressed by Neoliberalism and those disillusioned by the fall of the Soviet Union. How would people react to such revelations thirty years ago? When will the world realize that, legally speaking, World War II never ended in 1945, persisting for forty-five years as the “Cold War” and ended unceremoniously with a new Versailles Treaty that was signed on 12 September 1990?
Do people realize that one cannot fully appreciate The Decline of the West without its indirect sequels, including Prussianism and Socialism and Man and Technics? I mean, just watch as I juxtapose Decline of the West and this rare letter that Lenin wrote on 2 May 1922 about Spengler. Notice how it leapfrogs between Lenin and Spengler and Spengler and Lenin. Similar to how John Jay, the third author of The Federalist Papers, was eclipsed by the contradictory arguments of Hamilton and Madison, can the following statements be perceived as the rhetoric of one man or two men?:
“Only ten years have elapsed! But measured in terms of our struggle and movement they are equal to a hundred years. For the pace of social development in the past five years has been positively staggering if we apply the old yardstick of European philistines like the heroes of the Second and Two-and-a-Half Internationals. These civilized philistines are accustomed to regard as ‘natural’ a situation in which hundreds of millions of people (over a thousand million, to be exact) in the colonies and in semi-dependent and poor countries tolerate the treatment meted out to Indians or Chinese, tolerate incredible exploitation, and outright depredation, and hunger, and violence, and humiliation, all in order that ‘civilized’ men might ‘freely’, ‘democratically’, according to ‘parliamentary procedure’, decide whether the booty should be divided up peacefully, or whether ten million or so must be done to death in this division of the imperialist booty, yesterday between Germany and Britain, tomorrow between Japan and the United States of America. (with France and Britain participating in one form or another).”
[“The ‘Decline of the West’, which at first sight may appear, like the corresponding decline of the Classical [Read: Greco-Roman] Culture, a phenomenon limited in time and space, we now perceive to be a philosophical problem that, when comprehended in all its gravity, includes within itself every great question of Being.”]
“The basic reason for this tremendous acceleration of world development is that new hundreds of millions of people have been drawn into it. The old bourgeois and imperialist Europe, which was accustomed to look upon itself as the center of the universe, rotted and burst like a putrid ulcer in the [First World War]. No matter how the [Socialists] and all the enlightened [Nationalists], who are capable of admiring (or even studying) Spengler, may lament [Western Civilization], [‘The Decline of the West’] is but an episode in the history of the downfall of the world bourgeoisie, over-satiated by imperialist rapine and the oppression of the majority of the world’s population.”
[“Is there a logic of history? Is there, beyond all the casual and incalculable elements of the separate events, something that we may call a metaphysical structure of historic humanity, something that is essentially independent of the outward forms — social, spiritual and political — which we see so clearly?”]
“Some infant Spenglers—I apologize for the expression may conclude (every variety of nonsense can be expected from the ‘clever’ leaders of the Second and Two-and-a-Half Internationals) that this estimate of the revolutionary forces fails to take into account the European and American Proletariat. These ‘clever’ leaders always argue as if the fact that birth comes nine months after conception necessarily means that the exact hour and minute of birth can be defined beforehand, also the position of the infant during delivery, the condition of the mother and the exact degree of pain and danger both will suffer. Very ‘clever’! These gentry cannot for the life of them understand that from the point of view of the development of the international revolution the transition from Chartism to Henderson’s servility to the bourgeoisie, or the transition from Varlin to Renaudel, from Wilhelm Liebknecht and Bebel to Sudekum, Scheidemanu and Noske, can only be likened to an automobile passing from a smooth highway stretching for hundreds of miles to a dirty stinking puddle of a few yards in length on that highway.”
[“Nothing is simpler than to make good poverty of ideas by founding a system, and even a good idea has little value when enunciated by a solemn ass. Only its necessity to life decides the eminence of a doctrine. A doctrine that does not attack and affect the life of the period in its inmost depths is no doctrine and had better not be taught.”]
“At this most difficult moment it would be most harmful for revolutionaries to indulge in self-deception. Though Bolshevism has become an international force, though in all the civilized and advanced countries new Chartists, new Varlins, new Liebknechts have been born, and are growing up as legal (just as legal as our Pravda was under the tsars ten years ago) Communist Parties, nonetheless, for the time being, the international bourgeoisie still remains incomparably stronger than its class enemy. This bourgeoisie, which has done everything in its power to hamper the birth of proletarian power in Russia and to multiply tenfold the dangers and suffering attending its birth, is still in a position to condemn millions and tens of millions to torment and death through its white guard and imperialist wars, etc. That is something we must not forget. And we must skillfully adapt our tactics to this specific situation. The bourgeoisie is still able freely to torment, torture and kill. But it cannot halt the inevitable and—from the standpoint of world history—not far distant triumph of the revolutionary proletariat.”
[“A boundless mass of human Being, flowing in a stream without banks; up-stream, a dark past wherein our time-sense loses all powers of definition and restless or uneasy fancy conjures up geological periods to hide away an eternally unsolvable riddle; down-stream, a future even so dark and timeless –– such is the groundwork of the Faustian picture of human history.”]
Thus Spoke Lenin: One Divides into Two, Two Unites into One
“The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.”-Friedrich Nietzsche, The Dawn, ca. 1881
“No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.”-Friedrich Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ca. 1883
There are some Nietzschean passages in Vladimir Lenin’s Philosophical Notebooks, which was one of his more philosophical texts. One area of interest concerns “On the Question of Dialectics,” describing the need to comprehend the possibility of creating dialectics out of seemingly contradictory pairs.
The splitting of a single whole and the cognition of its contradictory parts (see the quotation from Philo on Heraclitus at the beginning of Section III, “On Cognition,” in Lasalle’s book on Heraclitus) is the essence (one of the “essentials,” one of the principal, if not the principal, characteristics or features) of dialectics. That is precisely how Hegel, too, puts the matter (Aristotle in his Metaphysics continually grapples with it and combats Heraclitus and Heraclitean ideas).
The correctness of this aspect of the content of dialectics must be tested by the history of science. This aspect of dialectics (e.g. in Plekhanov) usually receives inadequate attention: the identity of opposites is taken as the sum-total of examples [“for example, a seed,” “for example, primitive communism.” The same is true of Engels. But it is “in the interests of popularisation…”] and not as a law of cognition (and as a law of the objective world).
In mathematics: + and —. Differential and integral.
In mechanics: action and reaction.
In physics: positive and negative electricity.
In chemistry: the combination and dissociation of atoms.
In social science: the class struggle.
The identity of opposites (it would be more correct, perhaps, to say their “unity,”—although the difference between the terms identity and unity is not particularly important here. In a certain sense both are correct) is the recognition (discovery) of the contradictory, mutually exclusive, opposite tendencies in all phenomena and processes of nature (including mind and society). The condition for the knowledge of all processes of the world in their “self-movement,” in their spontaneous development, in their real life, is the knowledge of them as a unity of opposites. Development is the “struggle” of opposites. The two basic (or two possible? Or two historically observable?) conceptions of development (evolution) are: development as decrease and increase, as repetition, and development as a unity of opposites (the division of a unity into mutually exclusive opposites and their reciprocal relation).
In the first conception of motion, self – movement, its driving force, its source, its motive, remains in the shade (or this source is made external—God, subject, etc.). In the second conception the chief attention is directed precisely to knowledge of the source of “self” – movement.
The first conception is lifeless, pale and dry. The second is living. The second alone furnishes the key to the “self-movement” of everything existing; it alone furnishes the key to “leaps,” to the “break in continuity,” to the “transformation into the opposite,” to the destruction of the old and the emergence of the new.
The unity (coincidence, identity, equal action) of opposites is conditional, temporary, transitory, relative. The struggle of mutually exclusive opposites is absolute, just as development and motion are absolute.
In Prussianism and Socialism, Oswald Spengler was arriving at very similar conclusions:
Still, at the base of this powerful collective consciousness there is inner hostility and contradiction. Concealed within the soul of every culture is a single, irreparable fissure. The history of each culture is a never-ending conflict between peoples, classes, individuals, or tendencies within an individual—it is always the same awesome problem. As soon as one historical element makes its appearance it immediately calls forth an opposing element. Nietzsche has identified for us the great dichotomy of Classical life which reappeared again and again in various forms: Apollo and Dionysus, Stoics and Epicureans, Sparta and Athens, senate and plebs, tribunate and patriciate. With Hannibal at Cannae, Epicurean Hellenism stood in opposition to the Rome of the Stoics and senators. At Philippi, the Spartan element of Rome was defeated by the Athenian element personified by the Caesars. Even in Nero’s matricide we can discern a triumph of the Dionysian idea of panem et circenses over the Apollonian rectitude of the Roman matrons. Throughout all the epochs of Chinese history, in Chinese life and thought, battles and books, we can perceive the antithesis connected with the names of Confucius and Lao-tse and the untranslatable concepts of li and tao. Similarly, it is one and the same schism in the Faustian soul that has shaped our destiny through the Gothic and Renaissance, Potsdam and Versailles, Kant and Rousseau, Socialism and Anarchism, and which will go on shaping it right up to our last days.
Yet even so, this Destiny is unified. The discord and antithesis serve a higher reality. Epicureanism is but another form of Stoicism; Aeschylus brought together Apollo and Dionysus; Caesar combined senate and plebs; the Taoism of Lao-tse helped to create Confucianist China. And the Western peoples whose instinct is anarchic are themselves truly socialistic in the larger Faustian sense.
In the US, this analogous to the need to create “a more perfect Union” between the Federal and State governments as promulgated by American Federalism and enshrined in the US Constitution. The problem with American Federalism, going by Lenin and Spengler’s conclusions, is that Hamiltonian Federalism and Madisonian Federalism are both irreconcilable because of the Great Divergence inside of the Federalist Party. Abraham Lincoln’s “A House divided cannot stand” is relevant for American Federalism and Prussian Socialism, Leninism and Maoism.
In the PRC, the Chinese Communist philosopher Yang Xianzhen conceptualized all of the above best as “One Divides into Two” and “Two Unites into One.” The Maoists who sided with Chairman Mao were arriving at conclusions very similar to those of Oswald Spengler and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck despite differences in language and culture. In essence, what sort of working relationship should Prussia and China be having toward Socialistic Capitalists and Nationalistic Socialists supportive of the Soviet Union?
Since the Maoists were consistently hostile toward the Soviets, it is also peculiar for some Maoists to argue that Socialism would prevail over Capitalism and other Maoists to argue that there can be a synthesis between Socialism and Capitalism. “The East Wind prevails over the West Wind” or a possible for a European-style Stately Quadrille in a Diplomatic Revolution, where nation-states trade ideological partners on the basis of finding Solidarity through mutually-shared interests.
We begin with the obvious:
The Federalist Party of the US has Hamiltonian Federalists and Madisonian Federalists.
The Democratic-Republican Party of the US has Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicans and Henryist Anti-Federalists.
We now bring our attention to the most obvious challenge of reminding everyone reading The Fourth Estate that Madisonian Federalism and Hamiltonian Federalism will always be irreconcilable. The Great Divergence between the two Federalisms in the Federalist Party was already at hand with Ratification of the Constitution and later addition of the Bill of Rights. Alexander Hamilton was fully adamant about this historical reality in Federalist Paper No. 85, otherwise he would never have laid the metaphysical groundwork on how to propose new Amendments to the US Constitution. Today, Madisonian Federalism remains aligned itself with Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicanism, which I had stated in the Compendium Conclusion.
But what sort of implications could be inferred from this in relation to similar factional conflicts within the Soviet Union and German Reich (and as an extension of both, the People’s Republic of China)? Are there any US parallels that can be inferred from those three countries? Consider this as part of an attempt to create a distinctly Socialistic conception of International Relations:
Socialism with Russian Characteristics has Stalinist Sovietism and Trotskyist Sovietism (“Socialism in One Country” vs. “Permanent Revolution”), Khrushchevist Sovietism and Brezhnevist Sovietism (“Coexistence” vs. “Détente”) and Romanovist Sovietism and Gorbachevist (“Conservative Perestroika” vs. “Liberal Perestroika”) orientations, with Romanovist Sovietism emanating from Grigory Romanov.
Socialism with Chinese Characteristics has Mao Zedong Theory and Deng Xiaoping Theory (“Two Whatevers” vs. “Four Modernizations”), Deng Xiaoping Theory and more recently Xi Jinping Theory (“Four Cardinal Principles” vs. “Four Comprehensives”). Either Maoism is allowed to create a Command Economy or Dengism is allowed to create a Planned Economy, Xi Jinping Theory a pragmatic middle between the two Theories.
Socialism with Prussian Characteristics had Oswald Spengler and Arthur Moeller van den Bruck (Authoritative Socialism vs. Conservative Socialism). Spengler’s Prussian Socialism was less favorable to the Soviet Union and fewer accommodations for wealthy landowners, whereas van den Bruck’s Prussian Socialism was more conducive to a Soviet alliance and greater accommodations for wealthy landowners.
Socialism with Germanic Characteristics had German Scientific Socialists (KPD/SED) and Pan-Germanic Socialists (DNSAP/NSDAP). The former was more or less welcomed in East Germany, the latter more or less welcomed in West Germany. Either Germany becomes a People’s Reich or a People’s Republic, with the National Communists (aka “National Bolsheviks”) being a pragmatic middle between those two Socialisms.
Since I have argued that Socialism with American Characteristics is trapped between Hamiltonian Federalism and Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicanism, as best personified by the two President Roosevelts (Theodore’s “Square Deal” vs. Franklin Delano’s “New Deal”), an Anti-Federalism is needed to balance Hamiltonian Federalism. In US history, Madisonian Federalism has already aligned itself with Jeffersonian Democratic-Republicanism. That is why I rest my Quality of Arbeit on Patrick Henry, the Founding Father who once chanted:
“Give me Liberty or give me Death!”
Unlike Madisonian Federalism, Hamiltonian Federalism and the spirit of Anti-Federalism had become one in 1798 over the infamous Kentucky-Virginia Resolutions. Patrick Henry’s decision to return to politics at the behest of George Washington and the former’s untimely passing in 1799 is suggestive of Anti-Federalism being somewhere between the Hamiltonian Federalists and the Madisonian Federalists. The Intent on Washington’s part in 1798 suggests that Henryist Anti-Federalism was supposed to be serving as that delicate counterweight to between the Federalisms. If that had been the case, if had Henry been able to live longer, the Federalist Party’s fate could have gone down another path. Therefore:
The Federalist Party of the US has Hamiltonian Federalists and Henryist Anti-Federalists.
The Democratic-Republican Party of the US has Jeffersonians and Madisonian Federalists.
Given my arguments in favor of the Socialist conception of Property Rights, the Socialist conception of Civil Rights must always be capable of encompassing the political and ideological, the economic and financial, the spiritual and theological, the social and cultural, the environmental and technological. Only in American Conservatism is it possible to envisage American Nationalism and American Socialism finding true Solidarity vis-à-vis the Union as a Totality.