The Clare Spark Blog

August 19, 2016

What _____ “Community”?

Filed under: Uncategorized — clarelspark @ 7:20 pm
Tags: , , , , , ,

community In Aldous Huxley’s dystopian novel “Brave New World,” (1931), the anarchist (AH) starts out by describing “Stability, Identity, Community” as the chief propaganda aims of his projected leap into the future. Although I have dealt with stability and identity elsewhere, this blog is about 1. What the establishment means by “community”; and 2. How the New Left generation erased “class” (class interest) in favor of “race” (a deviation from early 1930s’ Communist ideology and practice).

All the trendy movements since the late 1960s have collaborated in the New Left project: feminism (i.e.,“the woman’s movement” privileges gender above all, hence the tears rolling down the cheeks of many Democrats as Hillary Clinton clinched the nomination); Greens; rock ‘n roll (primitivism); and all the cultural nationalisms approved by “ethnic” minorities.

For instance, here I mentioned that the black masses/underclass have been left behind by their upwardly mobile families and friends (https://clarespark.com/2016/07/09/understanding-black-lives-matter/), but I didn’t mention the erasure of class interest in the so-called “black community”  (https://clarespark.com/2014/11/27/what-black-community/). Such a dramatic change from “class” to “race” didn’t happen overnight; rather it happened as multiculturalism’s took hold in the late 1960s under the tutelage of such as Malcolm X and Louis Farrakhan and the white liberal establishment (and all social democrats), aided and abetted by the aging [Stalinist] generation suffering from a failure of nerve, supporting such nonsense as “white supremacy.”

Such a move blended well with New Left anti-war movements and student strikes. But their predecessors in the radical movement of the 1930s, would have condemned organicism (the blessed union of Man and Nature) and “race” as bogus terms, rejected by liberal and radical anthropologists alike as excrescences of far right nationalism (i.e., fascism). Above all, the few true red radicals among them focused on the lack of “community” in any sense, for there was a structural class conflict, impeding any community of interests.

Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal class collaborationist programs were termed “social fascism” until the Popular Front against fascism was instituted after 1935. The Reds partook of the post-Enlightenment innovation of “dialectical materialism” by which they meant that the enlightened working class would take the vanguard of social change; history was inexorably moving toward working class rule. The “mechanical materialism” of the big bad bourgeoisie was a ruse, but their technology would provide for all in the new dispensation.

Neither political party in the US will talk about this history. The “far Left” is now occupied almost solely by social democrats, arguably the most proto-fascist movement in world history.

“Welcome to the future” as the television commercial promises. “Race” and “ethnicity” have been rehabilitated.

Differ two.com. image

Differ two.com. image

Advertisements

September 3, 2014

Solidarity on “the Left” vs. disunity on “the Right”

conflictmanagementPOTUS (Obama) delivered his usual mixed message today, first vowing to smash ISIS, then softening his stance to one of “managing conflict.” This blog is about why the Right can’t unify to defeat such typical ‘switcheroos.’

All graduate students in today’s better doctoral programs are marinated in the ideology of “progressivism.” How did this come about? I have traced the origins of managerial attempts to deal with the frightening rise of the “laissez-faire” bourgeoisie that threatened to spread Jacobin-type revolution in the early years of the Industrial Revolution–not because the conservatives were Jacobins, but because the early years of the Industrial Revolution, spawned by an alliance of bourgeoisie and aristocracy, suggested a revolution of the new industrial working class. Class relations in Britain were never the same again.

To review: aristocrats in England bonded with the new industrial working class (drawn from deskilled artisans and peasants) against the bourgeoisie. (See https://clarespark.com/2011/07/16/disraelis-contribution-to-social-democracy/.) Disraeli’s Young England and its Christian Socialist allies provided a model for forward thinking politicians, historians (!), and journalists in the United States after the Civil War (the take-off period for rapid industrialization now that the agrarian South was vanquished). Enter the Progressive movement that skillfully co-opted the anti-elitist populist movement, a movement composed of small producers on the land, and directed against railroads for instance. But the progressives never stood with working class organizations or the dread specter of “proletarian internationalism”—rather, they installed “ethnicity” or “race” as the socio-economic division that mattered, erasing “class” as a category for sorting people’s interests out.

The Nation magazine moved sharply to the left in 1919, to avert bloody class warfare, but they supported populism, not communism. Their stance could not have been more elitist or counter-revolutionary. (See https://clarespark.com/2009/09/19/populism-progressivism-and-corporatist-liberalism-in-the-nation-1919/.) Oswald Garrison Villard’s crypto-organic conservatism or a gentleman’s version of the route to social cohesion is obvious, and no anarchists or communists were taken in by his anti-capitalist fulminations.

You could say, with accuracy, that progressives and leftists hated each others’ guts until the brilliant stroke of solidarity against “fascism” in the mid-1930s that was called “the Popular Front.” Such solidarity between social democrats and hard leftists continues to exist, scandalously in my view, with social democrats controlling the discourse. For no radical of either Left or Right should abandon empiricism and materialism (i.e., Enlightenment) to be absorbed by the alleged management of structural conflicts offered by social democrats (i.e., progressives who don’t like Progress as delivered by relatively unregulated market economies).

Hence, the confusion today over Obama’s “true” loyalties: is he a Leninist or a managerial centrist? Opinion on the Right is sharply divided, perhaps because selected pieces of New Deal reformism still exist in the upper reaches of the Republican Party, for instance in the impetus toward Medicare accomplished during the Eisenhower administration, a statist remedy that would serve as models for other reforms in Big Government, such as Obamacare marching toward “Medicare for all.”

“community”

I cannot blame the Tea Party for its animus against what appears to be the passivity of Congress in resisting the Obama administration’s apparent big lurch to the Left, but I do fault them for unnecessary sectarianism, particularly among the social conservatives who appear to have abandoned the separation of Church and State, and look to a religious revival to repair structural problems in American society, all the  while denying that there is any racism on the Right.

Contra many conservatives, “liberalism” is not a religion, but an ideology that will triumph as long as the pseudo-leftist social democratic managerial discourse dominates popular culture/public and private speech.

“Progressive rock, Italian style

Until the hopelessly corrupt Chicago machine is dislodged, there is no stopping Big Government. Whatever the flaws of the “Republican establishment” it would serve classical liberalism well to take a lesson from the leftist playbook and practice “solidarity forever.” [Update 9-4-14: There cannot be solidarity on the Right as long as mutual hostility exists between small and big business. See http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/07/08/the-u-s-government-isnt-friendly-enough-to-big-business/. This argues that [New Deal reformism] favored small business over big business. This will shock many in The Tea Party.]

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.