Revision (18 January 2022)

Sometime later this week, I need to post an actual Blog Post to provide evidence to support my suspicions regarding James Madison and James Monroe. But for now, I have completed the drafts of the last new Section. “‘What is the American Essence?'” delves into the implications of American Socialism by providing a basis from which to articulate Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism as a type of “Conservative Socialism” intended to challenge Jeffersonian Liberal Capitalism. The Great Divergence of the Federalist Party has been reinterpreted in an entirely different light to illustrate the fact that there is a fine line between American Socialism (Hamiltonianism) and American Social-Democracy (Madisonianism). All the evils of America’s “Hypersexualized Fascism,” particularly its ‘Welfare Capitalism’ and its ‘Workfare Socialism’, have been exposed by me as the byproducts of Social-Democratic Reformism, which may be applicable to other countries, seeing how Americanized the world has become thanks to Jeffersonian Cultural Imperialism, courtesy of Globalization.

What does it mean for Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism to be a “Conservative Socialism?” Any attempts to implement an authentic “American Socialism” must reflect the old spirit of “American Federalism” in the vein of Socialist Patriotism. There will always be a fine line between Patriotism and Chauvinism.

These answers were revealed to me while I was researching The Anti-Federalist Papers and finding out that, contrary to what is commonly understood by historians, the Anti-Federalists were split between Hamiltonianism and Jeffersonianism, Conservative Socialism and Liberal Capitalism, the Master Morality of the Proletariat and the Slave Morality of the Bourgeoisie. Truly, the Anti-Federalists are an American example on how to overcome the Law of Non-Contradiction and advocate for Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism as a “Conservative Socialism.” Everything below pertains to how I conceptualized Hamiltonianism as its own distinct Socialism while gradually introducing the necessary justifications for the Work-Standard.

“What is the American Essence?”

What is the American Essence?” will always be the overarching question presented by The Work-Standard in relation to the Americanization of Pure Socialism. Moreover, it is possible for the reader to reapply that same question to their own nation (“What is the National Essence?”) because America is a very diverse country with People’s Communities from the rest of the world. Given the right circumstances, any experiences learned by the People’s Community here in the US can be reapplied to their own homeland. It all depends on whether the youth, the next generation, is cognizant of their ancestral origins and will find a balance between themselves as Americans on the one hand and as the descendants of immigrants who arrived at various points in US History.

Unlike Liberal Capitalism, that question itself is capable of being approached from so many different observations, providing ample opportunities to devise potential applications and give meaning to Pure Socialism. It should be recalled from the preceding Section that Pure Socialism has yet to be defined. That was a deliberate decision on the Author’s part in order to demonstrate that Socialism was never meant to be a monolithic ideology where one definition prevails. As a term chosen to differentiate itself from the countless other Socialisms, Pure Socialism is best understood as a blank slate, a white sheet of computer paper, or what Immanuel Kant had once referred to as a “ding an sich” (a Thing-in-Itself). Pure Socialism remains in that condition until somebody decides to delve beyond its mere outward Label, discovering its Essence and molding Pure Socialism into an existing Socialism or else creating an entirely new Socialism from scratch. The implications alone necessitate a “Scientific/Artistic Socialism Distinction” to separate the Non-Marxist Socialisms from the Marxist Socialisms.    

To identify any Socialism and distinguish it from all others, determine whether somebody is trying to find the definition of Pure Socialism, contextualizing the ‘Value’ of its Label and Essence, fashioning its Gestalt (Form) to suit a particular Weltanschauung (Worldview). This methodology is more akin to an Artform of well-established Aesthetics and Styles, instead of a Science of well-tested Hypotheses and Theories, the latter being the real cause behind why most Americans often struggle to properly define their American Socialism, hence “What is the American Essence?”.

The recurring demonstration throughout The Work-Standard involves “Nietzscheanism,” a Socialism modeled after the Philosophy and Weltanschauung of Friedrich Nietzsche. Despite Nietzsche himself having expressed his own skepticism toward Socialism, that has not stopped Marxists and non-Marxists alike from conceptualizing a “Nietzschean Socialism.” Nietzscheanism can be split into two variants, “Prussian Socialism” and its two distinct subvariants, and “Nietzscheanism-Leninism.” The latter is an original creation of this Author based on another counterintuitive argument that “Vladimir Lenin was Nietzsche’s Zarathustra.” While not serving as the real focus of American Socialism, Nietzscheanism nonetheless provides a convenient template of demonstrating the transmutation process of Pure Socialism into Artistic Socialism.

In the American Essence, there are only two distinct American Ideas that serve as political testaments to the English-Prussian Dialectic. Those are the “Federalist American Union” and the “Empire of Liberty,” its historical adherents being two opposing parties among the American Founding Fathers, the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party respectively.

The Federalist Party (“Federalist American Union”)

Upon swapping Nietzscheanism for the American Essence, the Author has found two candidates for a distinct Artistic Socialism called “American Socialism,” as well as an “American Social-Democracy,” the latter of which has already been implemented through Federal Reforms: “Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism” (the Socialism of a Federalist Faction led by Alexander Hamilton) and “Madisonian Federalist Socialism” (the Socialism of another Federalist Faction led by James Madison). For those who do not know, Hamilton and Madison were two of America’s Founding Fathers, the key leaders of America’s first political party, the Federalist Party, and two of three authors who wrote The Federalist Papers together under the penname of “Publius.” The third author, John Jay, is more aligned with Hamiltonian Federalism than Madisonian Federalism for reasons that will need to be made apparent within Entries related to US Foreign Policy.  

Based on The Federalist Papers as well as the Gestalt and Weltanschauung of the Federalist Party, there is a genuine rivalry between Hamiltonian Federalism and Madisonian Federalism, which can be corroborated by various obscure historical events in US History that go beyond how the US Constitution was ratified and later amended over the centuries. The point of contention is of course the “Great Divergence” within the Federalist Party. It is also expressed by two distinctly American Ideas that serve as political testaments to the English-Prussian Dialectic, the “Empire of Liberty” and “Federalist American Union.” If those two Federalisms are allowed to define Pure Socialism, the result is a Social-Democracy and an Artistic Socialism:

  • Madisonian Federalist Socialism (“Madisonianism”), sometimes referred to as “Bill of Rights Socialism” by its adherents, identifies American Socialism with the Bill of Rights and the short-lived proposal by Franklin Delano Roosevelt to amend the Constitution to include an “Economic Bill of Rights.” The New Deal, the Great Society, and the more recent Green New Deal are its manifestations. Well-known historical and contemporary adherents include the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) and Communist Party, USA (CPUSA), two organizations whose members have officially espoused Madisonian Federalist Socialism. The unambiguous aims have always been the creation of an American Social-Democracy, the “social safety net” deterring any serious opposition to the American manifestation of Liberal Capitalism (“Neoliberalism”).
  • Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism (“Hamiltonianism”) vehemently condemns the deliberate identification of American Socialism with the Bill of Rights, preferring instead to equivocate American Socialism with the Preamble. This is supported by Hamilton’s own criticisms of the Bill of Rights in Federalist Paper No. 84 and the outlining of important justifications for why the Federal Government must lead the Union in Federalist Paper No. 85 as a reiteration of arguments in Federalist Paper No. 1. The latter, also penned by Hamilton, is the source of Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism’s Idea of the Federalist American Union, a Union far greater than the sum of its own States. It is because of this that Hamiltonianism is also opposed to all notions of defining America as an Empire of Liberty. As of late, no political party officially advocates for Hamiltonianism due to the predominant influence of America’s second political party, the Democratic-Republican Party.

The Democratic-Republican Party (“Empire of Liberty”)

The organizational composition of the Democratic-Republican Party since the Civil War has been a “two-party system” with a “third party” that consistently emerges in the form of “bipartisanship.” Their Presidents and Congresses are responsible for an overwhelming majority of US Foreign and Domestic Policies being pivoted toward the Empire of Liberty, despite the attempts of certain US Presidents and others to redirect America toward the Federalist American Union. Regardless of time and place, the Party remains split into three Factions:

  • Democrats are the “Madisonian Faction” the legacy of Thomas Jefferson’s protégé James Madison. It is appropriate to deem the Democrats as the “Madisonians” due to their consistent advocacy of ‘greater economic equality’ and ‘representative governance’. This reflects the Gestalt and Weltanschauung of Madison as the Virginian slave plantation owner who also believed that every US household should have its own slaves. Madison was notorious for cracking like an egg by failing to practice fiscal discipline and being forced to make political decisions regarding the US National Debt and a willingness to raise Taxes on those who owned any slaves.
  • Republicans are the “Monroean Faction,” legacy of Jefferson’s other protégé, James Monroe.  It is also appropriate to deem the Republicans as “Monroeans” due to their overwhelming support for the Market/Mixed Economy, empowering financial markets and privatized commercial firms as a means of attaining political power. This reflects the Gestalt and Weltanschauung of Monroe, who believed that the purpose of the Federal Government is to empower Liberal Capitalists like himself. He had harbored strong economic insecurities because he was constantly concerned about those who were in opposition to Slavery. 
  • And the Bipartisans are the “Jeffersonian Faction,” representing Jefferson’s own legacy in the realm of US Domestic and Foreign Policymaking. They serve as the ideological vanguard of Jeffersonianism as the Gestalt and Weltanschauung of Thomas Jefferson’s own ambitions from the Revolutionary War. Appealing to vague notions of “American Exceptionalism,” they are overwhelmingly in favor of promoting Neoliberalism to perpetuate the Empire of Liberty.

The best way to understand the Democratic-Republican Party is not with the Left-Right Political Spectrum, but with a more appropriate “Freedom-Security Dialectic.” The ideological positions of the Democratic-Republican Party since the Civil War have been a constant oscillation between the need for greater Security and the need for greater Freedom. The Madisonian Faction favors “political unfreedom and economic security,” the Monroean Faction preferring “political freedom and economic insecurity.” That is where the Jeffersonian Faction steps in to maintain Checks and Balances, striking a compromise between the other two Factions.

Today, the overall composition, orientation and direction of US politics remains Jeffersonian. It is senseless for anyone inside the Democratic-Republican Party to be advocating for Hamiltonianism because the Jeffersonians will oppose those efforts. But that is not to say that there are no US Presidents whose Gestalt and Weltanschauung are Hamiltonian. The 20th century alone has witnessed two US Presidents who are not well-known for having embodied aspects of Hamiltonianism (and, ironically enough, Nietzscheanism-Leninism), Theodore Roosevelt and Richard Nixon. The former was the historical personification of Hamiltonianism, just as FDR serves as the historical personification of Jeffersonianism and Madisonianism by extension. The latter provided the necessary justifications for The Work-Standard and Hamiltonianism, the “Death of Bretton Woods.” While an investigative study of their presidencies is beyond the focus of The Work-Standard, let it be known that both men are Hamiltonian by Instinct.

Who are the Real Anti-Federalists?

Is it possible for anyone, American or otherwise, to envisage an “Anti-Federalist Federalism” or a “Federalist Anti-Federalism?” Often neglected and ignored in US History textbooks and the curricula of most American classrooms and lecture halls, the Anti-Federalists and their The Anti-Federalist Papers are worthy of mention here in relation to the American Essence. It is true that the Anti-Federalists constituted themselves as an entirely different Gestalt and Weltanschauung, but they can also be beneficial for the purposes of Hamiltonianism. In fact, some of them considered themselves as “Federalist Anti-Federalists,” while others like Patrick Henry were sympathetic to Hamilton and his Faction within the Federalist Party. Certain Entries in The Work-Standard have Anti-Federalist undertones that pertain to the following topics:  

  • America is not neither a Republic nor a Monarchy, and yet the Jeffersonians, Madisonians and Monroeans have inadvertently turned America into travesty of both. The Federalist American Union is a “Perpetual Union” that requires a specific model of democratic governance distinct from the current model under the Democratic-Republican Party.
  • There needs to be a real balance in the powers wielded by the Federal Government and those wielded by the State Governments. There may be certain US Policies which are more effective if done from the bottom-up by the State Governments as opposed to being dictated from the top-down by the Federal Government.
  • Unaddressed, unrectified flaws in the US Electoral College and US Congress have not only raised genuine concerns over excessive presidential and congressional powers, they may even sow the seeds of future disasters that can otherwise be avoided or at least mitigated. Due to the manner in which the US has been organized, revolutionary ways of holding the Federal Government accountable by the State Governments remain forthcoming.
  • The Bill of Rights may have done the complete opposite of “protecting” the freedoms and securities of the Individual. Between Madisonianism and the Democratic-Republican Party operating on a Freedom-Security Dialectic, it has instead “infringed” on certain freedoms and securities that will require proper solutions once the US adopts Hamiltonianism.
  • How many Americans are aware of the fact that the US, legally speaking, is operating in a State of National Emergency since 1979? Or the fact that the 9/11 attacks have given rise to a “Surveillance Capitalism” that profits from the mass surveillance of digital communications and the personal information of innocent Americans? There is even the strong possibility that the Democratic-Republican Party may have broken the Constitution through reckless declarations of “National Emergencies” by Jeffersonian Presidents as US Foreign Policy(!), the most egregious being Executive Order 12170.
  • Hamiltonianism must resolve important economic and financial questions related to the Productive Forces and the US National Debt, neither of which were given proper conclusions by Madisonianism in the best of circumstances. Additionally, key questions pertaining to “Federal Ownership,” “State Ownership,” “Federal Taxation,” “Native American Tribes,” “Religious Groups,” and so forth remain unaddressed.  

In closing, any Americanization of Pure Socialism leads to Hamiltonian Federalist Socialism. American Socialism will continue the legacy of American Federalism, condemn Madisonianism as the controlled opposition of the Madisonian Faction – the “Democrats,” and present an entirely different American Idea for the American Way of Life. The Federalist American Union is that Idea. Everything begins with a return to the American Essence and its English-Prussian Dialectic and the introduction of revolutionary methods.      

At the Gates of Tomorrow’s Yesterday

Socialist Economy requires Socialist Finance; “never pour new wine into old wine bottles.” The lessons of the previous century, including the gradual market reforms and downfalls of Socialist regimes, have demonstrated the justification for a proper form of Socialist Monetary Policy (SMP) to complement existing Socialist economic policies. The international financial system of Liberal Capitalism has grown increasingly volatile since the death of Bretton Woods and the rise of Fiat Currencies. The Gold Standard, like the Silver Standard in the late 19th century, has proven itself to be too inflexible and incapable of adjusting to changes in overall economic conditions. This fact alone contributed to the rise of “Monetarism,” “Supply-Side Economics,” “Derivatives,” “Cryptocurrencies” and the more recent “Modern Monetary Theory” as Liberal Capitalist attempts to fill in the financial void since the 1970s.

The Value of all Currencies around the world still remains at the mercy of financial markets and commercial banks that decide their Price according to the Incentives of Supply and Demand. This set of arrangements did not bode well for past Socialist nation-states, where they have been forced to enact market reforms that eventually brought about their demise towards the end of the 20th century. Even the People’s Republic of China (PRC), the other powerful Socialist nation-state besides the former Soviet Union, had to make compromises with its Currency, the Renminbi. Although Socialism continues to be advocated in the West and maintained in various parts of the developing world and former Eastern Bloc countries, the lessons of those years have yet to be studied with financial insight from a Socialistic worldview in mind.

For Liberal Capitalist regimes and the Western world in particular, the current financial and monetary policies have proven to be unsustainable to the point of being ridiculous. Capital has grown so abstract that it is now possible to speak of a separate economy all unto itself and is virtually unaffected by the realities of actual national economies. It has also become so easy to create in absurd quantities that all the problems of Inflation and rampant Depreciation have not been properly addressed the growing Sovereign Debts of whole nations. Today, all nations are becoming overburdened by an accumulating deluge of Debt. The effects of Debt, even in spite of attempts at renegotiation through refinancing, continue to impact whether the quality of life in any nation thrives or stagnates.

This fact alone has not prevented all sorts of people from advocating for a return to the Gold Standard and others to promote Modern Monetary Theory. The difference between both proposals is nil; they represent attempts to resurrect some version of Bretton Woods, refusing to address the real questions related to the accumulation of Debt and the US Dollar persisting as the World Reserve Currency. If there has never been enough Gold in existence to sustain the economies of the world by the 1970s, there will never be enough at all to sustain the Gold Standard in the 21st century or even thereafter. Conversely, MMT continues to a naïve attempt to create Capital without realizing the importance of monetary policy and without knowing that there is far more to the concept of Currency than the ability to create it out of nothing. And at the same time, there are those who promote Cryptocurrencies without realizing that financial power has always been backed by the powers of the State. It also does not help that Cryptocurrencies still requires excessive amounts of electricity and some form of access to the World Wide Web (WWW), the Internet used by billions of people around the world to facilitate the existence of a digital Blockchain.

All of these proposals, in addition to never addressing the problems of Interest Rates, Debts and the abstractions of Capital, will never advocate for Currencies to be backed by the physical, mental and spiritual strength of the people who constitute the nation-state. None of them are willing to address the issues of Deindustrialization, Globalization, Climate Change, Automation, Demographics Decline and Economic Stagnation, especially where the issue of Currency is apparent and unavoidable. Continuing to operate under Liberal Capitalist Finance is senseless for everyone interested in any form of Socialism.

The Concept of The Work-Standard

Five decades after the Nixon Shock declared the Death of Bretton WoodsThe Fourth Estate is proud to introduce Sociable Currency and its distinct Currency Standard, the Work-Standard. The Work-Standard marks the first serious attempt at the proper conceptualization of a financial model to serve as the revolutionary vanguard of Socialist Monetary Policy (SMP). The term Sociable Currency best describes any Currency pegged to the Work-Standard, distinguishing it from the more mundane Commodity Currencies, Representative Currencies, Fiat Currencies, and Cryptocurrencies.

Issued by the Socialist Nation, Sociable Currency is pegged to the Quality of Work exerted by the national economy. Every economic activity and financial transaction within the national economy flows from the Life-Energy of everyone involved. The Worker’s commitment of physical, mental and spiritual strength into an occupation is their Life-Energy. One may be inclined to argue that this Life-Energy is also related to the Mehrwert concept, the Surplus Value which the Worker attributes to their “Work,” independent of the “Capital” and “Debt” required to sustain Neoliberalism.  

The Worker pursues their life-long profession as a Vocational Civil Servant, channeling their Life-Energy toward the creation of Work through the State itself. All Works of the Socialist Nation naturally accumulate inside a Life-Energy Reserve, which allows the Central Bank to convert all Works into Money denominated as Sociable Currency. The Money is sent to the State, where it is then allocated elsewhere for the flourishing of the whole Nation. Quality of Work is what ultimately enables Sociable Currency to have any inherent Value. Inferior qualities will only yield Currency Depreciation and vice versa, requiring a disciplined work ethic and inherent social values.

This Quality of Work is affected by the Work-Productivity (WP) of the national economy within the overall production of raw materials, finished goods, and everyday services. Work-Productivity is tempered by all Expenses and Costs known as Work-Intensity (WI). Allowing WP to surpass WI yields a superior Quality of Work, which enables the Central Bank to put more Money being put into circulation.  It is because of these arrangements that the Work-Standard serves as the only Currency Standard to realize Economic Socialization (ES) as opposed to “Economic Liberalization,” paving the way for the eventual articulation of genuinely authentic Socialist Finance and Socialist Financial Technology (Fintech). Economic Socialization (ES) is not just a fiscal or monetary policy; it marks the beginnings of Pure Socialism, the rejuvenation of the National Essence, and the eventual realization of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”

Forays into Unrealized Opportunities and Untapped Potential

There is far more to the Work-Standard itself than what has been described. The details surrounding its intended functions and designs are multi-faceted, crossing into various fields and disciplines unrelated to the enacting of fiscal and monetary policies. Not everything in the Nation requires a lot of Money, just as certain Professions tend to contribute more Work than others to the Life-Energy Reserve. The great challenge is far more than just providing the most accurate information through the most reliable technologies. There is an ontological factor that affects whether anyone, no matter who they are, will be able to realize their fullest potential.

This Political Organization Problem is more than just a governmental issue that only the State can resolve. It is an issue that affects the lives of everyone in the Nation as they live their lives in the service of everyone for everyone (as opposed to “everyone for themselves”). Everyone has their talents, contributions, aspirations and motivations in Life. The State needs to ensure that everyone will coordinate and cooperate with everyone through Economic Socialization, which will become remains an important area of interest for the Work-Standard.



Categories: Politics

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

1 reply

Trackbacks

  1. Madison’s Democrats and Monroe’s Republicans – The Fourth Estate

Leave a 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: