To begin, has anyone ever wondered why I, an American English speaker from New England, tend to deliberately exclude the verb “Utilize” and the noun “Utility” from my vocabulary? Such words are in final analysis the ideological language of a Liberal Capitalist Philosophy known as “Utilitarianism.” Utilitarianism, I should point out, was the same Philosophy that also introduced to humanity the Totalitarian concepts of the “Police State” and “Mass Surveillance” vis-à-vis “the Panopticon,” their contemporary form being “Social Media.”
“[Neoliberalism] began with a false idea of Liberty, which it misunderstood even as it formulated it; and it ended with [‘Positive’ and ‘Negative’ Liberties to justify Kapital Accumulation]. All human error [since the Enlightenment] lies here[.] [I]f [one is unsure about its Philosophical origins], [always remember that the metaphysics of Neoliberalism is constantly] concentrating [all human] thought on Utility [and Progress.] When [Jeremy] Bentham formulated Utilitarianism [in the 18th century] he genuinely deceived himself into thinking that self-interest, if only rightly understood, would lead to the welfare of all. [E]verything is good if it can be termed ‘Free’ and twice good if it can be called ‘Useful’ as well. This Philosophy supplied a self-confidence which became the sober virtue of the [British Empire and, by extension, the Democratic-Republican Party and the Liberal International Economic Order, sharing] an almost sadistic pleasure in ‘regulating’ [colonial] interests [by Economic Sanctions and Financial Speculations].”-Arthur Moeller van den Bruck, Das Dritte Reich, ca. 1923
“[Inspired by Manchester Liberalism, Neoliberalism] would accept the 19th century Liberal emphasis on the fundamental importance of the Individual, but it would substitute for the 19th century goal of Laissez-Faire [Capitalism] as a means to this end, the goal of the competitive order. It would seek to use competition among producers to protect consumers from exploitation, competition among employers to protect workers and owners of property, and competition among consumers to protect the enterprises themselves. The State would police the system, establish conditions favorable to competition and prevent monopoly, provide a stable monetary framework, and relieve acute misery and distress. The citizens would be protected against the State by the existence of a free private market; and against one another by the preservation of competition.”-Milton Friedman, “Neoliberalism and Its Prospects,” From ‘Farmand’ Magazine, ca. February 17, 1951
If there was anything to serve as a visual reminder for what I am about to describe in this Philosophy-related Blog post, it should be the Implicit Intent behind me rejecting the words “Utility” and “Utilize.” For reasons that I cannot possibly begin to fathom, there has been a tendency among Liberal Capitalists to project such ideological ideas onto the Socialisms. No Socialism deserves to be subjected to such inhumane treatment. Every Socialism ought to be resisting those subversive influences because they do not reflect the values of all Socialisms.
Allow me to explain that my ongoing deconstructions of the metaphysics behind Pan-Germanic Socialism had presented me with some peculiar implications:
The Dialectics of Pan-Germanic Socialism are between the Weltanschauung of Friedrich Nietzsche and the Weltanschauung of Richard Wagner, the latter symbolizing the Pan-Germanic tendencies within Pan-Germanic Socialism. It is evident in the common misconception that Nietzsche and Wagner are somehow the philosophical influences behind Pan-Germanic Socialism, as if the two men are being framed by Liberal Capitalists as having contributed to the metaphysics of Hitlerism. Such claims are ridiculous, foolish and even outright dangerous because most people are unaware of Nietzsche’s obscure evidence to the contrary in Nietzsche contra Wagner; Out of the Files of a Psychologist. In that essay, Nietzsche had insisted that he was genuinely against Wagner on the topic that would later become Pan-Germanic Socialism.
I am confident in arguing that something very similar has been occurring between Jewish Socialism and Islamic Socialism since the 20th century and continues to resonate among Jews and Muslims living in the 21st century.
The Dialectics of Jewish Socialism are between Judaism and Nietzschean Zionism.
The Dialectics of Islamic Socialism are between Islam and Wagnerian Pan-Arabism.
In these United States, some American Jews and American Muslims are subconsciously and subliminally aware of these parallels. The problem is that they have never been able to connect Jewish Socialism’s Dialectics and Muslim Socialism’s Dialectics back to Nietzsche and Wagner. This is significant for America because, as long as these Dialectics remain unaddressed, American Jews and American Muslims will never be able to find peace with Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism. Worse, America will never find peace in its own affairs with the Middle East, even in the event of a Socialist world order heralded by the World State Organization (WSO).
Just consider these articles that I have found on Jewish Socialism and Islamic Socialism earlier this week. The first article pertains to Jewish Socialism, the other regarding Islamic Socialism:
“Bernie Sanders’ run for the presidency [for 2016 as well as 2020] under a Democratic Socialist banner reflects an old, standing commitment of Jews and Judaism to Socialism.
In fact, long before Sanders came on the national political scene as a seeker of the presidency, I proposed in a discourse that Jews’ propensity to a Socialist political and economic perspective reflects both a Torah-based economic ideology and a worldview that has arisen from Jewish experience.
Most Jewish politicos at the start of the 20th century were leaders in the socialist movements in France, Germany and especially Russia, as well as among U.S. labor leaders (most significantly in garment industry).
[Jewish] Socialism [is] central [to] the rise of the Israeli Kibbutzim. Most Kibbutzim held to the motto “to each according to his need and from each according to his capability.’”
Jews, for moral reasons derived from the Torah, also were opposed to the uncontrolled and crass [Neoliberalism] that governed the U.S. economic and political world.
Max Weber, a noted German sociologist, in his book “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” proposes that the early spirit of Capitalism was founded on a work ethic that carried with it a moral perspective. Rejecting the idea of work as punishment also reflected the search for a calling with a religious moral perspective. [Kapital] was [alleged to be] God’s [‘]reward[’] for asceticism and frugality, based on what God wants of us.“
As an American Catholic, I deconstructed some peculiar passages because the author, like Weber, was blinded by the subversive influences of Kapital. Arbeit always was and always will be “God’s Reward for Asceticism and Frugality, based on what God wants of us.” Meaningful Work is always the best Arbeit of all.
“Coming to the end of the 19th century, however, [Liberal Capitalism] began to shed its former ethical and moral underpinnings. [Liberal Capitalism] no longer sought to reflect humanitarian morals [in the 20th century].-Eugen Schoenfeld, Judaism and Socialism: Understanding Sanders, ca. May 19, 2016
The making of [Kapital] became a game with its own set of sans-humanitarian perspectives. It became a world of specialists without spirit, sensualists without heart, all stripped from ethical and moral meaning.
Weber sees the loss of humanism in robber barons — who see human beings merely from a Utilitarian perspective as extensions of machinery. This view was beautifully depicted in Charlie Chaplin’s movie ‘Modern Times.’
This Utilitarian view of the human in [Liberal] capitalism cannot coexist with a biblical perspective of the human being endowed with a Holy Spirit. It cannot reflect a desired society that is based on the principle of justice.
[Thomas Jefferson’s America] reflects the spirit of Sodom [and Gomorrah], where justice was absent [and degeneracy was the norm]. Justice [and morality] in the biblical sense reflect [the sanctity of Authentic Dasein], the right of the human [being] to be given a chance to live [in holiness and in accordance with the Will-to-Power of God].
This biblical view is seen in the laws pertaining to shmita (the seventh year) and the idea of the Jubilee, as well as the laws protecting the dignity of men and governing treatment when one must borrow [Geld]. All of these biblical and rabbinic laws and views stand in diametric opposition to the views of [Liberal Capitalism].
I stand in unison with Sanders regarding his apprehension about what [Liberal Capitalism] has done to the sanctity of [Authentic Dasein for the State of Total Mobilization]. I believe in [Legal Duties and Legal Rights] proclaimed in response to the Torah’s principles of justice, defining the [Honor] of the weak and poor to have, like all humankind, a chance at life and not to be treated as implements — as spiritless bodies and tools. [But] I stand [in opposition] to Sanders for his rejection of Israel [personified as Nietzschean Zionism].
Unfortunately, [the American Federalism of James Madison have become] the doctrinaire home of Anti-Israel opinions, and this trend is evident in Sanders’ view of the Jewish [State]. I reject him not only for the absence of ideas for implementing humanism into our moral sense, but also for shirking the collective Jewish responsibility to the continued existence of the historical Jewish land.”
This Jewish author, by insisting that Bernie Sanders is ashamed about being a Jewish Socialist, had nevertheless exhibited the psychic and psychological conditions of Nietzschean Zionism, which is inseparable from Jewish Socialism. He is a precise example of what I had once described in “On Hamiltonian Federalism and Friedrich Nietzsche (Pt. II of III)” as Nietzscheanism-Leninism contra Marxism-Lutheranism. “Marx is Dead, Marx remains Dead, and the Soviets have killed him!” Like the Gentiles, the Jew must also walk on the same tightrope between Two World Trade (Neoliberalism) and One World Trade (Socialism). They must heed the sound wisdom of Theodor Herzl: become the Jewish Übermensch, stay true to Judaism, pursue the Eternal Recurrence of the Jewish Essence, and create the Judenstaat (Jewish State) as the Versuch einer Modernen Lösung der Judenfrage (Proposal of a Modern Solution for the Jewish Question).
The other article is by a young American Islamic Socialist struggling to figure out whether she is an Islamic Socialist or a Pan-Arabic Socialist. Thanks to her, I am now willing to argue that the Central Plan for any proposed form of Islamic economic planning is the Five Pillars of Islam. However, I am deeply concerned by the fact that her motivations are reminiscent of the DPRK-ROK’s Korean Mousetrap because there is no “Equality” in the Liberal Capitalist sense under Socialism:
“As I continue building on my activism, I’ve had to defend several ways I advocate for equality and how I identify. Perhaps none of them get more raised eyebrows than when I say I’m a Socialist.-Rokia Hassanein, 6 Reasons Socialism and Islam Are Compatible, ca. October 30, 2020
Yes, the favorite villain of America politics, and perhaps the most misunderstood political concept.
But Socialism isn’t just misunderstood in the U.S. political space. It’s also misunderstood in religious spaces, including Muslim spaces.
So what is Socialism exactly? By definition, it’s ‘a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.’
This is not to be confused with [Neoliberalism], which allows the government to control most economic assets, including property and has a much broader loophole for abuse of power. With socialism, people are ideally able to democratically elect governments that provide a range of economic resources available for every citizen equally so that nobody goes into [Schuld] because of necessities such as healthcare or education [or the SSE].
Like all movements, such as Feminism, anyone can identify as being part of said movement while misusing it and not living up to its values.
This misunderstanding around socialism is sometimes valid, such as living through a regime that misuses socialism. The misinterpretation is also often invalid, as many religiously conservative people oppose the social liberties that socialism, when appropriately implemented, would extend to all marginalized groups.
I saw that first-hand with the older generation’s hatred of socialism, always referencing Gamal Abdel Nasser’s reign. I’m from an impoverished town called Bakos in Alexandria, Egypt. It’s Nasser’s — and both of my parents’ — birthplace, and I have a lot of pride in it, but one could see why anyone from Bakos would live there and see the urgent need to help impoverished communities in Egypt.
Nasser created the Arab Socialist Union in 1962. While the economy improved under his presidency, and universities became more accessible to the poor, Nasser failed to make human rights (aside from giving women more rights) the priority it should have been.
He banned and imprisoned political opposition like the Muslim Brotherhood. Egypt was also once a haven for Jewish refugees. Still, thousands of Jewish people living in Egypt, including Egyptian Jews, were imprisoned, ethnically cleansed, and exiled because of Nasser’s paranoid Antisemitism. The list goes on.
As a result, the lasting effects of Nasser’s regime isn’t his expansion of economic resources. Instead, it’s the staunch identity of Egypt as a military and police state.
So I understand Muslims who are skeptical about socialists, and assume socialist governing is anti-religion. After all, speaking only for Egyptian history, it was a “Socialist” who made political prisoners and terrorists out of the largest moderate Muslim-majority (they have Christian members) political group in Egypt — the Muslim Brotherhood, a group whose ideology doesn’t align with mine, but only because they’re like [the Democratic-Republican Party]. (And they certainly don’t deserve to be political prisoners, but that’s a an entirely different topic.)
Modern Muslim-majority countries haven’t exactly gotten socialist governing right like most of Europe has, thanks to the lack of democracy and authoritarianism. While some “Socialist” governments worldwide have also been [adherents of Scientific Atheism], don’t let that fool you into thinking Islam is not compatible with Socialism.”
The Muslim Brotherhood are like the Democratic-Republican Party? Why am I thinking about “Strategic Accounting and Allocation of the Federal Budget (Pt. IV of IV)” all of a sudden?:
“The Alien and Seditions Act (AASA), passed by Congress under the Federalist Party, will be reformed to address new-old Hamiltonian realities. Any political party membership with an Explicit Intent of overthrowing the United States ought to be deemed as a ‘Clear and Present Danger to these United States.’ Anyone who happens to be trapped in the wrong party is welcome to leave that party.
A good example of a party that has in fact posed a genuine Clear and Present Danger to the Union and should therefore be ineligible for Federal funding is the Democratic-Republican Party, as evidenced by their infamous ‘Principles of ‘98’ in the ‘Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.’ This is exactly what I meant when I previously questioned over whether Kentucky and Virginia are actual US States: are they British Commonwealths or are they US States? George Washington, Patrick Henry, and Alexander Hamilton had justifiable reasons to suspect that Thomas Jefferson and his protégé James Madison (and by extension, James Monroe) were plotting to overthrow the Federal government in 1798, which they eventually succeeded by the 1800s, culminating in the destruction of the original Federalist Party in 1824. The ‘Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions’ would later go on to become part of the legal justifications for the Southern States to secede from the Union over the Slavery issue in the Civil War.”
Leave a Reply