A valid argument deserves to be made about Antisemitism on the rise these days, yet nobody seems to know why. There has been an apparent normalization of the phenomenon across the Left-Right Political Spectrum in recent years that warrants some level of discussion. Here in America, the topic cannot be restricted to either the American Right or the American Left insofar as both are complicit. Recalling my own investigations and observations of Pan-Germanic Socialism on the ARPLAN Blog, I am convinced that its resurgence is at best misguided and at worst idiotic. It is only natural that I delve into the topic sooner rather than later because there is not one doubt in my mind that it serves as an unfortunate distraction from the real questions of Life after Neoliberalism.

The resurgence comes as a consequence of the declining economic livelihoods of everyday people in America and the broader Western world. Even though Neoliberalism has caused the socioeconomic and demographic collapse of Western countries after the Death of Bretton Woods, the effects enhanced by Financialization, Deindustrialization, Globalization and Automation, there are some people who, for various reasons, will refrain from blaming the Liberal Capitalists. It is not necessarily because they remain adherents of that ideology, even if their actions suggest otherwise, but because they cannot envisage Life after Neoliberalism. How does anyone comprehend the notion of Life characterized by “Post-Liberalism” and “Post-Capitalism?” What does it mean to envisage “Life after Liberal Capitalism?”

Since these questions are too intricate and too difficult for most people to grasp, some tend to express opposition to Neoliberalism on familiar grounds. While somebody on the Political Right resents Neoliberalism’s Social Liberalization because it erodes cherished values like the family, religiosity, and the importance community, they still tolerate the Economic Liberalization that comes with it. Conversely, somebody else on the Political Left abhors Neoliberalism’s Economic Liberalization because it deprives the working class of their livelihoods, but nevertheless condones Social Liberalization. These two people do in fact know that Economic Liberalization (on the Political Left) and Social Liberalization (on the Political Right) share the same Political Liberalization (at the Political Center), neither perceives the full picture. This is because they remain locked in the “Culture Wars” of the Liberal Capitalists.

With Antisemitism, the full picture is already there, albeit portrayed from the standpoints of whoever is perceiving that picture, implying a shared antipathy toward the Jewish people. Going back to the two people from the Political Right and Political Left, a shared set of absurd claims emerges. On the Political Right, there is the claim that the Jews are orchestrating demographic collapse, whereas the equally ridiculous one on the Political Left is fixated equivocating the State of Israel with Apartheid South Africa. Both narratives are sometimes juxtaposed with another claim that Western international finance is not Neoliberal but Jewish. In essence, because true opposition to Neoliberalism involves criticizing Economic Liberalization, Social Liberalization, and Political Liberalization, Antisemitism steps in to provide a convenient scapegoat.

If Antisemitism is so coherent and consistent that it serves as a distraction from the real problems of Neoliberalism, what makes “Post-Liberalism” and “Post-Capitalism” so incoherent and inconsistent for the Political Right and Political Left? How difficult is it for anyone to imagine “Life after Liberal Capitalism?” How are the terms “Post-Liberalism” and “Post-Capitalism” defined in the political-economic discourses of the Political Left and Political Right?

The terms “Post-Liberalism” and “Post-Capitalism” suggest a transition away from Liberalism and Capitalism–“Liberal Capitalism”–and toward something else. Barring those simple definitions, the two terms on the Political Right and Political Left are so vague that there is an appalling lack of ideological consensus.

The issue with both ideas is that they present Life after Liberal Capitalism as an empty ideological void. They make Neoliberalism itself appear less Nihilist by comparison. Neither professes the need to develop new forms of political-economic Right and Duties copacetic with the State of Total Mobilization. They remain stuck in the State of Natural Rights, where the only way forward is to conserve what cannot otherwise be conserved and to revolutionize what cannot otherwise be revolutionized. Instead of being a “Conservative Revolutionary,” Post-Liberalism and Post-Capitalism have yielded a “Liberal Reactionary” by failing to come up with a coherent, consistent alternative to Neoliberalism. If there is anything to be learned from this observation, it is that there are certain ideas which are counterproductive and even downright destructive to one’s Self, Totality, and State.  

Categories: Philosophy

Tags: Economics, Finance, Philosophy, Politics, Psychology, Socialist Finance, Third Place, Work-Standard