Wednesday, 11 October 2017

'Scientific Socialism' as Soul Science (Wilberg on Wednesday)

Marxism beyond Materialism

The Marxist philosophy of ‘scientific socialism’ is usually thought of as a form of crude, materialist philosophy, as suggested by terms such as ‘dialectical materialism’ and ‘historical materialism’. That Marx’s understanding of both ‘materialism’ and ‘science’ was in fact completely at odds with that of modern materialist science was made clear in his Theses on Feuerbach, where he writes:

The chief defect of all previous materialism … is that the object, actuality, sensuousness, is conceived only in the form of the object of perception, but not as sensuous human activity … not subjectively.

The most basic scientific ‘fact’ of all – ignored in all modern sciences - is not the existence of a universe of perceptual objects, but rather the fact of our immediate subjective and sensuous awareness of such a universe. The problem is that‘subjectivity’, ‘consciousness’ or ‘awareness’ has hitherto only been conceived as the property of a point-like human ‘subject’ or ‘ego’, bounded by the body or even mysteriously localised in the brain. Modern science is precisely a materialism of the sort that reduces even the human body and brain to mere perceptual objects, and then finds itself in the impossible situation of having to explain how such objects can miraculously give rise to subjective awareness. In this science of the human body there is no place for the human being, who is reduced to a phantom of the brain, a homunculus looking out at the world through the peepholes of the senses.

But what if all seemingly localised and point-like centres or ‘subjects’ of awareness are the expression of non-local fields of awareness or subjectivity? What if subjective awareness is not a blank sheet on which we passively register sensory impressions coming from perceptual objects – but has its own innate sensuous qualities and patterns – for example the subjectively sensed lightness or darkness, colour and tone, levity or gravity of our moods, the subjectively sensed dullness or clarity of minds, the subjectively sensed size and weight, solidity or fragility of our bodies, or our subjectively sensed closeness or distance, warmth or coolness towards other beings? What if such sensed qualities and patterns of subjective awareness as such are the source of all ‘objective’ energetic and perceptual patterns or ‘gestalts’? What if ‘the soul’ is nothing suprasensible, insubstantial or disembodied, but is instead the bodily shape and form taken by such innate field-patterns and field-qualities of awareness? What if the very substantiality of our bodies themselves is the sensed and sensual substantiality not of some material body object of perception but of subjectivity as such? What if all the sensory qualities of nature are the expression of soul qualities - innate qualities of subjective awareness? What if these sensual qualities of the human being’s soul or inner nature can link us directly with the very inwardness or soul of nature itself? Then and only then, could we begin to comprehend Marx’s concept of a natural science of man that is at the same time a human science of nature.

This will not be a crudely objectifying, materialist science of the sort we see today, but a ‘subjective’ or ‘phenomenological’ science – a science of immediate subjective awareness and experiencing. More precisely, it will be a field-phenomenology of the sort articulated by the Marxist physicist and phenomenologist Michael Kosok in his seminal essay entitled Dialectics of Nature. For as he writes:

Subjectivity, phenomenologically, simply refers to a field of presence, i.e., an immediate non-localised gestalt, ‘opening’ or ‘awareness’ whose content is constituted by events of mediation of determination – by ‘objects’ of awareness … Subjectivity, as a non-localised field of presence is nothing but concrete immediacy, i.e., experience as an on-going process, in which the events or event-complexes present are any objects, products or structures appearing out of the field … be they symbolic systems, physical objects or egos.

It is precisely this PHENOMENOLOGY of awareness between field and events which at the same time expresses itself as a DIALECTIC of inseparable distinctions, or what in modern science is called a NON-linear field of relations. In a dialectic relation, all elements are grasped as elements OF relation and never simply as elements IN relation.

For Marx, revolution was intrinsically connected with the liberation of the human senses and of human subjectivity – the soul - understood sensuously. This means the liberation of subjective experiencing as an on-going process from its domination by any and all of its products – whether these take the form of scientific models and mathematical abstractions, religious myths and symbols, perceptual objects or material commodities.

The function of myth or abstraction – in science as well as society – which alienates a product from the process of experience is … to delimit all actual and conceivable experiences as expressions of that product.

Growth and genuine transcendence come only when one can re-grasp the relationship that exists between the process of experience and its products, realizing that products and results are neither ends (positive or posited goals), nor something to be denied (negative goals) but are rather the vehicles and means through which experience can enrich its self-mediated state of concrete immediacy and express itself in visible forms.

Degeneracy, however, sets in when the reverse takes place and man defines and delimits experience…in terms of its products and results. Such is the paradoxical challenge of existence – not to be ‘done in’ by the very products of its process!

So-called ‘false’ or ‘inauthentic’ consciousness is simply the product of ‘true’ or ‘authentic’ consciousness, instead of being the process.

Michael Kosok Dialectics of Nature

This is not ‘psychologism’ or ‘subjectivism’ in the narrow sense. For as Michael Kosok points out:

Emotional reactions, thoughts and object modifications are NOT examples of experience, but rather PRODUCTS of experience …

Ibid.

Such ‘psychical’ phenomena, like ‘physical’ phenomena all emerge or arise (Greek physis) from non-local fields of awareness. ‘Dialectic phenomenology’, with its recognition of the field character of awareness or subjectivity, is a subjectivism which avoids all solipsism and with it the false philosophical question of how much reality we can attribute to the subjective awareness of others – the question of ‘other minds’.

The so-called problem of the ‘other’ or of ‘other minds’ only appears if you think (Laing notwithstanding) that experience is private and in need of being communicated, i.e., that experience can be ‘owned’ like a commodity’.

Ibid.

The way we ‘privately’ experience others is automatically sensed by the other and automatically communicates to the other - just as does the way they experience us. Subjectivity or awareness is in essence reciprocal or ‘inter-subjective’. ‘Scientific Socialism’ is a new science of ‘soul’ understood as a social field of inter-subjective relationality – uniting the soul inwardness of human beings not only with that of others but with the aware inwardness or soul of all apparent ‘objects’ of perception. Understood in this way, ‘Scientific Socialism’ is ‘Soul-Science’, a revolutionary science that stands in radical opposition to all current forms of social and scientific reductionism – the reduction of the human senses to the single sense of ‘having’ that Marx wrote of, and the reduction of all immeasurable qualitative dimensions of human subjective experience to ‘objectively’ measurable quantities.

Thursday, 5 October 2017

Migration and Control

Polish workers on their way to Britain going through passport control at Calais. Photo lumokajlinioj / shutterstock.com


We’ve had a government policy paper over free movement. But we still need clarity…

Who should decide who is allowed to live in Britain? The question was central to our decision to leave the EU in June 2016. The British people clearly rejected having no say over the future of our country and especially no control over who comes and who stays. Freedom of the citizens of member states to live and chase work (or be shifted from country to country) anywhere within the EU is central to EU law, so regaining control means leaving.

So, where are we now?

In June this year the government published a policy paper called “Safeguarding the position of EU citizens in the UK and UK nationals in the EU”. It said free movement will end by March 2019 when we leave the EU, and that the European Court of Justice (ECJ) jurisdiction over non-British citizens living here will cease.

‘NO SUCH THING AS AN EU CITIZEN.’

Incidentally, there’s no such thing as an EU citizen because there is no such thing as an EU state – yet. So by EU citizens we mean citizens of the 27 other EU member states. Latest official estimates suggest around 3.3 million in Britain at present, a rise of 126,000 since June 2016, of whom 2.37 million are working,

Status

The paper outlines the future status of EU citizens living here at present and how they can apply for “settled status” allowing them to stay after Brexit by meeting certain criteria. So far, so good. It’s reasonable to clarify for those who have lived here continuously for at least five years how they can become part of an independent Britain, as long as they stay – if they leave they lose that right. The government wants British citizens living abroad in the EU to have the same rights.

As Workers goes to press The Times reports that the government will announce that after Brexit citizens of EU states can continue freely to come and live here and apply for work – employers wanting to hire them will have to apply for permits. The system would be policed by spot checks as “at present”. And we all know how well that works – not really at all.

‘WHY SHOULD WE WORRY ABOUT BRITONS LIVING ABROAD?’

We need clarity. The government should stop announcing policy by leaks and rumours and start being straight with the British people. We have demanded control over our borders and ordered government to provide this.

Why should we worry about Britons living abroad? If you choose to live in another country you should be subject to the laws of that country, and be aware that those laws can change. It’s part of the risk you take.

Cut-off

After a period which enables eligible EU citizens to achieve “settled status” here, there should be a clear cut-off point after which would-be migrants from the EU should be treated the same and be subject to the same laws as non-EU people, and be allowed to work the basis of strict criteria of Britain’s need.

So control of immigration doesn’t mean putting up a wall around Britain, but is about our control – that’s what sovereignty means, not being ordered around by a foreign court.

To achieve control, we need a system of enforcement, properly staffed and funded and thorough in approach. Nothing like the present patchy, leaky and inefficient way that checks are carried out on non-EU “black economy” workers. Free movement feeds a system which suits cheapskate employers and undermines British workers with imported cheap labour – it must end.

There is much talk of the contribution made by EU migrant labour. Employment figures for this June show the reality of that contribution: an increase in numbers employed; shrinking real-terms wages; productivity dropping yet again – it has barely improved in the past decade. With free EU movement of workers, employers have no incentive to invest in skills here or increase wages.

The possibilities for our country are bright when we leave. We can develop our own economy independent from the EU, but we have to educate and train our own population to provide what we need. Government must now demonstrate that it is fully committed to this future.

Reproduced with full permission from our Comrades in the Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist). We are more than happy to be able to work with the CPB-ML and thank them for this opportunity. We have our differences, (mainly our regionalism versus the CPB-ML's Britishness) but we also have much in common. Thank you again Comrades.

Wednesday, 4 October 2017

The New Socialsm - Wilberg on Wednesday

Anti-War Anti-Wage
Anti-Waste
Anti-McWork
Anti-McWorld
For Spiritual Individualism
For Deep Values not Brand Values
For Total Pacifism and Non-Violence
For a Revolution in Human Relations
For the Re-ensoulment of Life and Science
For Free Creative Labour not Wage Slavery
For Equal Remuneration of all forms of Labour
For an End to the Medicalisation of Social Dis-ease
For Free Associations in Cooperative Enterprises
For the Global Levelling of Living Standards
For Total Respect towards all Life Species
For Quality of Life not Quantity of Profit


“From Each According to their Ability, To Each according to their Need.”
Karl Marx


The New Socialism is ‘anti-world’ – against the sham global ‘world’ of corporate capitalism – a ‘McWorld’ that turns everything of spiritual value in the human soul into a commodity.

The New Socialism is also anti-wage and anti-work. For ‘work’ in capitalism is neither creative nor fulfilling. Instead it is wage-slavery and it is also waste manufactured in the name of economic growth – the waste of both natural resources and creative human potentials in the overproduction of near identical and often entirely unnecessary consumer products.

The New Socialism is anti-waste and anti-war, war being itself the waste of human and non-human life and the waste of economic and natural resources for the manufacture and marketing of military hardware - all in the service of competition for those resources and for economic markets. 

The New Socialism is thus also anti-weaponry – in particular all those Weapons of Mass Destruction hypocritically monopolised by the major capitalist world powers. The destruction of other life species and the endangerment of the human species itself is conducted by global capitalism in the name of world economic progress. Thus today it would seem inconceivable for a politician, political party or movement to advocate a retreat from this ‘progress’ - from economic growth, employment, individual consumption and ‘living standards’ in the industrialised capitalist world. Yet this is precisely what is required to overcome the vast intra- and international inequalities of wealth and living standards generated by global capitalism, and to create genuine quality of life for all those whose lives are dominated by uncreative work compensated only by wasteful consumption.

The New Socialism is anti-world, anti-war, anti-waste, anti-wage, anti-work and therefore also anti-worship. For the only ‘god’ that capitalist culture recognises is Mammon – the god of quantitative economic value. Its only true commandment is to worship that god by any and all means possible – up to and including the total devaluation of all authentic spiritual values, the total degradation of the human being, and the total ecological devastation of the earth. But the most important form of worship that capitalism demands is ‘work’ or ‘employment’ – in other words wage slavery. Hence its greatest religious sin is ‘non-employment’ or ‘economic inactivity’. In a sick world, sickness and disability have become forms of bodily protest against spiritually debilitating work. The human body has become the principal 'conscientious objector' to all that is soul-destroying in our society - hence the endless attempt to wage war on illness through new drugs, genetic manipulation and medical technologies rather than understanding its social meaning.

The New Socialism recognises that what is religiously promoted as 'freedom' and 'democracy' by the champions of global capitalism disguises outright economic totalitarianism - not only the subordination of politics and politicians to the economics of the market but the daily subordination of individual wage- and salary-slaves to their executive autocrats and to the totally undemocratic corporate cults and dictatorships they are forced to labour for. As for 'freedom of expression' or even 'freedom to protest', this disguises the outright censorship and brainwashing brought about by corporate media monopolies and the corporate interests they serve - not least the military-industrial complex of U.S. global imperialism with its intrinsic investment in war and in the expansion of U.S. economic and cultural totalitarianism.

Tuesday, 3 October 2017

Stand Strong Catalonia! No to Madrid, No to Brussels

Despite extreme brutality by the occupation forces of the neighbouring country of Spain, the people of Catalonia have voted for independence from the rump of the Spanish Empire.  SWPE applauds this move and calls on the legitimate government in Barcelona to immediately declare total independence from the Madrid regime.

Spain is very similar to the UK. It is a collection of nations held together by a central imperialist authority, which rides roughshod over the local cultures of the suppressed countries.  Spain still occupies a part of Morocco (Ceuta and Melilla), the continuing occupation of which can be compared to the London regime's ongoing occupation of northern Ireland.

Catalonia has long had a distinct political outlook which brings it into conflict with Spain.  During the Civil War, Catalonia held on as a heartland of the Republic, being one of the last areas to fall to the Nationalists of General Franco.  The current situation resembles the days of Spanish Fascism, with the Civil Guards of Madrid beating voters and destroying ballot papers in an attempt to silence democracy.  The Spanish police have brutally attacked the people of Catalonia, with the Catalan Fire Brigades and Catalan Police Forces being beaten for defending the people from the imperialist aggression of Madrid.



The hated king of Spain, Felipe the 6th, has declared that his government will not recognise the right of the Catalan people to self-determination.  SWPE calls on the government of Catalonia to defy the Ruling Class tyrants and immediately declare the country free from Spanish rule.

The EU has ignored the barbaric actions of Spain, turning a deaf ear to the suffering of the People. There are elements in Catalonia which seek to make Catalonia into a new EU state, thus simply exchanging rule from Madrid to rule from Brussels. This again has comparisons with the SNP in Scotland seeking to break up the UK but keep under the jackboot heel of the EU. This of course is a problem, but with the arrogance of the EU with its demands that the Independence Referendum and police brutality be ignored, that may change.  Right now, what matters is that the People gain the State they desire, free from Madrid, and as the EU unravels, ultimately free from all forces of imperial occupation.

¡Visca Catalunya!

Thursday, 28 September 2017

NHS: A Sticking Plaster for Capitalism with the potential to be an Anchor of Socialism

The National Health Service is cherished throughout the U.K.  People from outside our country tend to look in with bemusement at what they may consider to be an almost religious devotion to free healthcare.  Americans in particular look at universal healthcare with distrust, considering it to be somehow a part of some communistic threat to all they hold dear.  Indeed, the current president, Donald Trump, was elected partly on a pledge to repeal Obamacare, which is the closest the USA has so far come to experiencing a socialised system of healthcare.


The NHS was created stage by stage with the Ruling Class resisting it at every step.  The major leaps forward came with free hospital provision being afforded to military personnel wounded fighting to keep the capitalist parasites in power over the people as a whole.  The carnage of two World Wars was the price in blood for the building of the Welfare State, with socialised healthcare forming a major part. 

The NHS was not given to the people by a benevolent establishment; it was torn from them by a people who had been subjected to the most horrific suffering; it was a reluctant compromise by the Ruling Class to keep the people from revolting.  By throwing a few easily afforded scraps from the table to a people who were so beaten down that they had become accustomed to living a life of hardship, the establishment was able to reap a fanfare of extreme gratitude from a  people who could not see that they had a right to be treated as human beings, and that universal healthcare was but a part of a better world which was kept away from them by the people they were cheering.

The existence of the NHS is an affront to capitalism. The Ruling Class allowed it to be formed as a sticking plaster for an economic system in its death throes.  The NHS has been under attack since its foundation, with the attacks increasing over time until it is now beginning to collapse.

The most common criticism of the NHS is that it is an economic blackhole, which no matter how much money is thrown at it, will never reach a point where it can balance the books.  This criticism at a simplistic level is correct. However, what is omitted is any consideration of why the NHS wastes such a vast amount of money. When that is examined, it becomes clear that the Service is the victim of capitalist machinations and liberal obsessions, which together are tearing it apart.

The capitalist assault on the NHS is so obvious that it is only through the collaboration of the mass media that the assault is kept hidden. 

In a Socialist Society, prices and wages are fixed. This basic action ensures that there is no such thing as inflation.  The NHS operates within a wider capitalist reality, meaning that year on year costs increase, as medicines, wages, equipment and all manner of other costs rise. As long as capitalism exists inside the UK, this problem will also exist.  The  false solution of increasing the amount of money taken in taxes to fund the NHS, allows the capitalists to use statistical data to 'prove' that the Service is failing, and to blame its Socialist ethos for this problem.

The economic drain has reached critical point due to external influences exacerbating financial issues.  These are not looked into deeply, for to do so would expose the deliberate abuse of the NHS by those who fund and direct it.


The NHS employs a vast number of people.  Those at the bottom are generally paid a pittance, while those at the top receive incomes which are obscene.  Directly aping the capitalist system itself, there is a management structure in which the lazy and overpaid bourgeoisie are set apart from the hardworking and cash-strapped Proletariat.  This situation is greatly worsened by the use of agency staff, who at the bottom level receive such little money that they are barely able to afford to pay their rents, bills, taxes and basic living costs.  The employment agencies suck money from the taxpayer, creaming off an indefensible percentage of the wages of the staff who keep the NHS running. 

Government legislation protects the employment agencies, allowing them to hire and fire at will. Crippling anti-Union legislation keeps the full time staff in fear for their jobs, with job insecurity for all but the upper management being a key factor in allowing the anti-human employment practices to go unchallenged.

At the upper end of the scale, the bloated higher managers are paid disgustingly large salaries, which they receive regardless of their workload.  We are told that upper management must be paid salaries which are in line with the private sector so that the best minds can be enticed to work for the public good.  This is frankly bullshit.  Capitalism is built of the need of people to stab each other in the back in order to rise to a position where they accumulate great wealth, while those who are less mercenary eek out a meagre existence.  This thinking has no place in the NHS - in truth it has no place in a sane society, and to find it lauded in the NHS is disgusting.

The NHS hierarchical system has been twisted and distorted to ensure that whereas the Proletarian staff can be sacked with the flimsiest of excuses, the Bourgeois managers and directors are harder to get rid of, and when they are dismissed, are let go with golden handshakes of sums of money which are totally unjustifiable.

The NHS management system is set up to stop the incompetent being punished.  A truly useless lower manager can be pushed higher and higher up the ranks, to become an absolutely pathetic upper manager, while those who are capable, efficient and good at their jobs at kept in place, barely progressing, if at all.


The government of the U.K. is pushed by those who control it, to privatise everything.  The NHS has been divided into rival bodies which have to compete for resources.  These bodies pull in different directions, and increase the drain on resources by duplicating staff - especially overpaid management - for no good reason. The lapdog media dutifully reports on this absurdity, albeit omitting to discuss the corruption which is the government interference behind it all.  This is then used to justify introduce the private sector into the NHS via many points of entry, with a not-for-profit Service becoming a business, funded by taxpayers, with profits going into the coffers of greedy parasites. Richard Branson (the UK version of George Soros) has secured contracts to run Hospitals, with vast sums in kickbacks going to government people as a reward for putting profits before people.

Another factor which is wrecking the NHS is the spiralling cost of medicine. Pharmaceutical companies make drugs at very little cost, and then sell them at exorbitantly inflated prices. Quite often the drugs do not even work, and in all too many cases, they are harmful to patients.  The drug companies have a vested interest in pushing their chemicals. If products which prevented ill health, were widely used, the pharmaceutical corporations would see their profits vastly cut. It is in their interests to keep us sick. A healthy patient does not consume expensive drugs. A healthy patient does not make profits for the chemists.


There are alternative remedies and therapies which the NHS is discouraged from allowing patients access to.  A whole range of chemical treatments are ethically questionable, but are used routinely due to the subjugation of healthcare to profit-making.

In a Socialist society, all businesses, all amenities, all infrastructure is socialised. The NHS suffers greatly because it is at the 'mercy' of the private pharmaceutical companies. This issue requires the total socialisation of medicine. When treatment does not generate profits for anyone, there will be no incentive to produce treatments which do not help the patient. When medicines are produced and transferred to the healthcare providers at cost price, a key financial hole will be plugged. The only people who will lose out will be the capitalists who have made profits from medicines, some of which could not reasonably be referred to as such.

The waste of resources and money which has blighted the NHS is not the only aspect of its downfall.  Liberal politics have played their part too.  Employment quota systems which see people recruited with reference to factors which have no relevance on ability to do the job, have wreaked havoc on the NHS.  Matters which are entirely private, such as sexuality, religious beliefs, coupled with other irrelevant factors such as ethnicity, disability status, age, gender, have become key factors in recruitment.  When people are  recruited to generate statistics pertaining to diversity, rather than according to ability, people who would be an asset to the NHS, and most importantly to the patients who literally put their lives in its hands, can be denied the possibility of employment due to less suitable people being short-listed.  People should not be denied employment because of factors which are personal to them, but nor should they be able to use those factors as if they were some form of qualification.

The NHS has been ruined by successive governments who do the bidding of the Ruling Class and are purposefully undermining it as a healthcare provider.  Quota employment systems and salary scales to mirror private corporations (salary scales note, not wage scales) have given the NHS a sick ethos of "from each according to identity, to each according to greed"

SWPE opposes all Identity Politics.  We don't care what a person's sexual preference is, what his/her spiritual beliefs are, what his/her ancestry may be. We care about the quality of the individual and how he/she may contribute to the greater good of society in a way which is fulfilling and beneficial to all. 


Identity Politics is a bane on society. Whether it is racial supremacists who see the world in terms of their skin colour, or people who make their sexual desires into an obsession which they mistakenly see as the most important aspect of their characters, we reject all of the Identity movements.  Identity Politics is divisive. It creates false divisions, with people working against each other, to the detriment of society. It has become endemic in the NHS, and it has to be rooted out there as well as everywhere else.

Freedom dictates that people must have the freedom to be who they are, but this has been hijacked by liberal bigots and capitalist profiteers for purposes which are far from wholesome. 

The current Transgender phenomenon is a part of the Identity warfare on humanity.  Children are being made to feel that they are trapped in the wrong body, if they happen to enjoy playing with toys/clothes which are associated with the opposite sex.  This is a tragedy for an increasing number of children and adults who are undergoing dangerous cosmetic surgery to align their external genital features with their emotions.  These operations are being pushed politically, with operations relating to physical illness being pushed further down the queue in order to accommodate them. Financially it is a burden on the NHS which is adding to the undermining of the Service.  More importantly, people are having care delayed or not receiving care at all - people are getting sicker, people are dying, to appease a liberal obsession and to make profits for capitalist filth which have no problem in making money from human misery - misery which is more often than not the result of political pressures to generate problems which have to be cured.

The pushers of expensive surgery should be seen as equals to the pushers of expensive drugs. They do so because there is profit to be made. They do not care about human suffering. They make money from suffering. They relish suffering.

The NHS is under attack. To save it requires a complete overhaul in thought. Throwing money at it is not a viable long term solution. It was set up as a sticking plaster for capitalism. It has the potential to be a first rate system in which those best suited to providing medical care can thrive, with the whole of society benefiting.

The NHS has to be overhauled with management structures streamlined, with those who are not suited to such work replaced by those who are, with all profit-making abolished, with the entire salary/wage differential ended. None of this can happen within the confines of a capitalist economy. To save and grow the NHS, the country has be be brought over to Socialism. 

Capitalism is a disease which spreads disease. It is the mother and father of human misery. Socialism is the cure of the capitalist sickness. Socialism is the  bringer of health and happiness to replace cruelty, sickness and misery.


The plight of the NHS is the plight of the nation. Capitalism is destroying everything. When Capitalism is destroyed, everything will be better, every thing will be possible.

Wednesday, 27 September 2017

Socialism in an Era of Social Psychosis (Wilberg on Wednesday)



In the Communist Manifesto, written over a century ago, Karl Marx predicted the inexorable globalisation of capitalism. In the opening lines of Das Kapital, Marx speaks of capitalism presenting itself primarily as an accumulation of commodities – and of the defining feature of capitalist market economy being that human labour – and with it the human being itself – is itself transformed into a commodity to be bought, sold and used.




Marx’s analysis of the inherent contradictions of capitalism have become more evident today than at the time he wrote. We all see today that the interests of global capital and its ‘bottom line’ are irreconcilable with the need to protect the earth from climate change, to reduce the gulf between rich and poor countries and strata of society, to eradicate the roots of crime and terrorism, to overcome the epidemics of ‘stress’, ‘mental illness’, ‘anti-social’ behaviour, to prevent cultural degeneracy and ‘dumbing down’, to halt the decline in verbal and emotional literacy, and with it, the growing incapacity of human beings to experience deep spiritual intimacy with others.




The result is an era of ‘globalisation’ which Teresa Brennan has correctly characterised as one of social psychosis. This social psychosis is the direct result of the total commodification, consumerisation and marketisation of all aspects of human life, together with the total devaluation of all deep human values, their transformation into subjugation to ‘shareholder values’, and their transformation into brand values attached to things – consumer commodities.

The subject as producer sells himself and his energy to the system (and the given) without care and concern for the products, which somehow have their own life, prostrating himself as a slave to their production, while the worker as consumer buys and takes the products from the system (and the given), telling the system to “go screw itself”. Alienation as self-alienation takes the form of setting one aspect of consciousness against the other, giving rise to a dynamics of alternately using and being used, exploiting and being exploited, … objectifying and being objectified. Michael Kosok.

Where life is reduced to using and being used, no wonder that social psychosis manifests itself in every conceivable variety of ‘abuse’ – whether through violence and war, individual and state terrorism, torture and physical abuse, religious and sexual abuse, drug and the abuse of psychiatry and medicine to suppress all the individual symptoms of a sick society. All this is backed up by a constant abuse of education, marketing and the media to turn human beings into culturally ignorant wage slaves on the one hand, and autistic consumers or ‘users’ on the other.

In the era of social psychosis that has resulted from the globalisation of capitalism, it is no longer possible to achieve revolutionary social change or revolution through political means alone. For politics itself has become marketised – resulting in a situation in which political ideologies and parties of all colours are themselves marketed and sold as commodities. As a result:

One either functions within the system, accepting it, or one functions outside the system, rejecting and attacking it, but the system itself remains un-transformed. Ibid.

As a result, revolutionary socialism, in the era of social psychosis, can no longer take the form of political activism, for in this situation:

….any one-sided action is always a passive reaction to a given.
Conformity means simple acceptance of the given while rebellion means simple rejection of the given; both are therefore reactive mechanisms to the given.

Indeed the highest form of normalcy functions by simultaneously permitting both acceptance and rejection, conformity and rebellion, playing off one against the other without transcending either. Ibid.

What is required is a ‘socialism with soul’ – a socialism that rescues human subjectivity from the essence of ‘abuse’ – the alienation of alternately or simultaneously using and being used, exploiting and being exploited, objectifying and being objectified, violating and being violated, terrorising and being terrorised, persecuting and being persecuted, attacking and being attacked, judging and being judged.

The revolutionary must always attempt to overcome one’s continual tendency to simply react passively and one-sidedly in the static and contradictory modalities of mere acceptance versus rejection, or the mechanical game of either conformity or destruction, of judging either true or false. A revolutionary transcends judgement as an end in itself and is concerned with transformation, conversion, salvation and resurrection in the deepest sense.

The only truly revolutionary means to the overcoming of social psychosis is the deepening and expansion of what Mike Kosok, like Martin Buber, termed ‘inter-subjectivity’ – a deepened recognition of and relation to the other as a subject or soul and not as an object or thing. Paradoxically, this deepening of inter-subjectivity – of the immediate relations between one human being and another - can only serve as a means to a revolutionary ‘end’ as long as it is not itself reduced to a mere means to any end but instead valued as an end in itself – as the very essence of ‘revolution’ in the age of social psychosis.

Wednesday, 20 September 2017

The Empire of Money (Wilberg on Wedesday)

THE EMPIRE OF MONEY
…and the myths that underpin it

INTRODUCTION
“Let me issue and control a nation’s money and I care not who writes the laws.”
Mayer Amschel Rothschild (1744-1812), founder of the House of Rothschild
Where money and wealth rules politics, geo-political empires have become a mere instrument and façade for one empire that rules over all others – ‘The Empire of Money’.  This has been the case since the plutocracies of imperial Greece and Rome, since the abolition of ‘tally sticks’ as debt-free money in England, the deliberate use by the English of counterfeit notes to undermine the debt-free forms of ‘scrip’ or paper money issued by the colonists in American, the creation of the Bank of England and funding of King George’s war against the colonists by the Rothschild banking empire.  And today it is the likes of Goldman Sachs that rule – not Europe and not the United States empire.
The Empire of Money would have us believe that nation states are long out of date and is all in favour of ‘Unions’ of all sorts, not just the ‘European Union’ but the once free Union of States it turned into ‘The United States’ – now nothing but a military and police state serving the Empire.   On the other hand, any nation or union of nations that seeks to be or once again become an imperial political power is immediately targeted by the Empire of Money – not for the purpose of political but of financial ‘liberalisation’ i.e. monetary and political subservience to the Empire of Money. Hence the recent liberalisation of private banking in both China and Russia.   The Empire of Money is what the German thinker Ernst Jünger would have called ‘the Leviathan’. Political and military-technological empires are merely its titular ‘Titans’ – creations of the One God it worships – Money.
As with other religions, along with the religion of money – what Marx called ‘The Monotheism of Money’ – goes a mythology. The Empire of Money however, is based on a religious myth different from that of other religions in a most fundamental respect. Why? Because it dare not even speak its name lest it be recognised as the monumental myth that it is. The concealment of this myth is therefore truly a ‘conspiracy’ in the root sense of the word – for only the rulers of the Empire of Money recognise it as a myth. The truth it conceals is ‘breathed together’ (con-spirare)  behind the closed doors of bankers’ boardrooms and invisible financial cabals.
THE MONUMENTAL MYTH
What then is this monumental myth – a myth that underpins the entire Empire of Money. The myth is a mythical belief – a belief that is so ubiquitous and so ingrained in the minds of economists, the mass media and political parties of all colours that it is never even formulated outright, yet alone questioned. It is the unquestioned belief that the public spending of governments is dependent on either taxation or on borrowing from private bankers. With this belief firmly in place, and to meet their ever-growing debt obligations, governments either have to tax more, borrow more, and/or impose draconian cuts in public spending on their people. For once in the grip of debt ever more government taxation and/or ever more brutal public spending cuts are  required merely to repay the interest on accumulated debt to the Empire of Money.
For the Lords of the Empire of Money demand their money back – even if they themselves have lost it through their greed to extend loans to individuals and nations who need them because they can no longer afford to ‘live within their means’.  This is the new, neo-feudal face of capitalism – the Lords demand their tithe of the Gross National Product of nations – and ensure they get it because it is built on the quicksand of loan money. They do so through means of a Big Lie – one necessary to support the basic mythical belief on which the Empire depends. This is the lie – also believed and propagated by the press, media and political parties of all sorts – that the only way of reducing a country’s ‘national debt’ is through massive cuts in public spending and in people’s incomes, pensions, public services, benefits etc. 
MAKING MONEY FROM NOTHING
Where, one may ask, does this loan money that is so generously offered to individuals or businesses by the banks – or else forcefully imposed on whole nations –  come from in the first place? Herein lies yet another unquestioned myth whose hidden and secret truth is  known only to the few – the 1% that rule the Empire of Money. As mere serfs or slaves we are led to believe that banks lend money that we, as savers, deposit with them. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth.  Banks quite literally create money from nothing – simply by keying any figure that is desired into a borrower’s electronic computer account. Once keyed in however, this figure counts as money belonging to the bank – allowing the bank in turn to demand that borrowers pay that sum of money to the bank out of their earnings and their savings, and that along with a nice bit of interest on top. The bank itself does nothing to earn money except by making money from nothing – as fictitious loan money for which it then demands hard-earned money from the borrower.
What if you could use your personal computer to digitally key in any figure they wanted into other people’s computer accounts as a ‘loan’ – and then demand that they pay you back this money at interest – even though the money itself was created from nothing – just through a few strokes on a keyboard? If this sounds like a dodgy scam, then it is no wonder that The Empire of Money doesn’t want us to know that this is exactly how the entire banking system works.
For when you take out a loan from a private bank what you are really doing is giving the bank permission to create the very money you borrow from nothing, after which they then claim it as theirs  and demand you to give it back to them – at interest!
To add insult to injury – if loans that private banks use to ‘make money from nothing’ turn out to have been too risky, then governments spend billions or even trillions of pounds of our money to bail these banks out.  The banks on the other hand, begin to hoard their money – no longer lending to individuals, small business or even to each other, but raising bank charges and interest rates and refusing mortgages.
The real reason why so many countrys’ national debt is so high is because they long ago surrendered a basic national right to international bankers. This is the sovereign right of a nation to directly create and issue its own publicly-created money instead of:
(1) borrowing money from private bankers, and
(2) using public money not just to pay off the ever-spiralling interest on our debt to them – but also spend trillions to bail out the Big Banks!
Another reason is that more than 90% of the entire money supply of nations is not created as paper money or coins, but exists in the form of electronic or digital money created and owned by the banks as ‘debt’. The Big Banks therefore wield an all-powerful ‘Sword of Damocles’ over governments. For were these banks to collapse so would virtually the entire money supply of nations. That is the real reason why the banks are seen as ‘too big to fail’. They would collapse also if all debts to them were paid off in one go – for their financial ‘assets’ consist of nothing but debts.
THE HIDDEN TRUTH
Behind the myths and big lies on which the Big Banks depend however is a basic hidden truth – one which no one in the Empire-controlled media or political and economic debate is aware of or would  dare to speak of.
This hidden truth is that if private banks both can and do ‘create money from nothing’ then so also could states and governments – not as debt to private banks but as public money created and spent for the benefit of the people and not the bankers i.e. for the benefit of  the ‘99%’ and not the ‘1%’ who rule the Empire of Money.
To ward off and counter this truth yet another Big Lie is propagated and yet another myth accepted as fact. This is the myth that publicly created money would lead to ‘hyperinflation’. Yet if government treasuries could directly issue and create the money supply of nations directly, they could also decide how much money to inject into the economy during any given period in order to avoid inflation.
The task of governments would then only be to decide what that money is spent on i.e. anything but paying off vast quantities of debt and interest to private banks – which is what most public money is currently spent on.  Thus countries would be better off no matter how much money they issued.  The ‘hyperinflation’ myth arose from the example of Germany, which was deliberately saddled by the Allied powers – in reality the Empire of Money – with crippling debt and reparation payments after the 1st World War.
“The Treaty of Versailles had imposed crushing reparations payments on the German people, who were expected to reimburse the costs of the war for all participants — costs totaling three times the value of all the property in the country.” Ellen Brown It was precisely because the then bankrupt Germany did not default on its debts to the Allied powers and did not seize the opportunity to issue public money directly that it left the Deutschmark open to  financial speculation – the real reason for the hyperinflation. Ellen Brown: “….it was the privately-owned Reichsbank, not the German government, that was pumping new currency into the economy. Like the U.S. Federal Reserve … it was operated for private gain. What drove the wartime inflation into hyperinflation was speculation by foreign investors, who would sell the mark short, betting on its decreasing value. In the manipulative device known as the short sale, speculators borrow something they don’t own, sell it, then “cover” by buying it back at the lower price. Speculation in the German mark was made possible because the Reichsbank made massive amounts of currency available for borrowing, marks that were created with accounting entries on the bank’s books and lent at a profitable interest. When the Reichsbank could not keep up with the voracious demand for marks, other private banks were allowed to create them out of nothing and lend them at interest as well.” As a result, “People were living in hovels and starving. Nothing quite like it had ever happened before – the total destruction of the national currency, wiping out people’s savings, their businesses, and the economy generally. Making matters worse, at the end of the decade global depression hit. Germany had no choice but to succumb to debt slavery to international lenders.”
SUMMARY
One need not take the arguments of this article alone as proof of what it claims to be the monumental myth and Big Lies underpinning that global financial system which I call ‘The Empire of Money’ – a system which allows a minority of bankers to rule the politics of nations and political empires and to ‘make money from nothing’ through debt. Instead one need only take heed of those rare confessions which have come from the bankers themselves – in the full recognition of the fact that: “The few who understand the system will either be so interested in its profits or be so dependent upon its favours that there will be no opposition from that class, while on the other hand, the great body of people, mentally incapable of comprehending the tremendous advantage that capital derives from the system, will bear its burdens without complaint, and perhaps without even suspecting that the system is inimical to their interests.”
The Rothschild brothers of London writing to associates in New York, 1863
CONFESSIONS OF THE BANKERS
The bank hath benefit of interest on all moneys, which it creates out of nothing.”
William Paterson, director of the Bank of England
“I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the banks can and do create money. And they who control the credit of the nation direct the policy of Governments and hold in the hollow of their hand the destiny of the people.”
Reginald McKenna, as Chairman of the Midland Bank, addressing stockholders in 1924
 “The modern banking system manufactures money out of nothing. The process is perhaps the most astounding piece of sleight of hand that was ever invented.”
“The bankers own the world. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create money and control over that money, and they will create that money right back again. Take this power away from bankers and all great fortunes will disappear, and they ought to disappear, for this then would be a happier, better world to live in … But if you want to continue to be slaves to the banker and pay the cost of your own enslavement, then let the bankers continue to create money and control credit.”
Josiah Stamp, director of the Bank of England during an informal talk to about 150 history, economic, and social science professors in the late 1920′s at the University of Texas.
“The banks do create money. They have been doing it for a long time, but they didn’t realise it, and they did not admit it. Very few did. You will find it in all sorts of documents, financial textbooks, etc. But in the intervening years, and we must be perfectly frank about these things, there has been a development of thought, until today I doubt very much whether you would get many prominent bankers to attempt to deny that banks create it.”
H.W. White, Chairman of the Associated Banks of New Zealand, to the New Zealand Monetary Commission, 1955
“Banks lend by creating credit. They create the means of payment out of nothing.”
Ralph M. Hawtry, former Secretary to the Treasury
“Commercial banks create check-book money whenever they grant a loan, simply by adding new deposit dollars in accounts on their books in exchange for a borrower’s IOU.”
The Federal Reserve Bank of New York
“This is a staggering thought. We are completely dependent on the Commercial Banks. Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the Banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are, absolutely, without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is. It is the most important subject intelligent persons can investigate and reflect upon. It is so important that our present civilization may collapse, unless it becomes widely understood, and the defects remedied very soon.”
Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager of the Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Georgia
Congressman Patman: “How did you get the money to buy those 2 billion dollars’ worth of Government securities in 1933?”
Governor Eccles: “We created it.” Patman: “Out of what?”
Eccles: “Out of the right to issue credit money.”
Patman: “And there is nothing behind it, is there, except our Government’s credit?”
Eccles: “That is what our money system is. If there were no debts in our money system, there wouldn’t be any money.”
Dialogue notated during hearings of the House Committee on Banking and Currency, September 30, 1941. Members of the Federal Reserve Board call themselves ‘Governors.’ Eccles was Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board at the time.
IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE?
Is there an alternative to the rule of ‘Wall Street’ and the entire global Empire of Money. Yes there is – but only if the unquestioned myths and big lies that underpin it are exposed. Only then can the central goal of a people’s revolution be defined i.e. to re-affirm and re-institute the sovereign right of all nations and states (including the states of the U.S.A.) to issue their own publicly-created money without borrowing from private banks and for the benefit of the people and not the bankers.  The institution of public money creation and public banking through ‘People’s Banks’ – communal, regional, state and national, must be the key aim of ‘Occupy’ movements or movements of resistance to ‘debtocracy’ such as those in Greece and Spain. To achieve this aim many or all of the following steps will be necessary, albeit not necessarily in the order listed:
  • Organisation of Local People’s Councils in different regions, town and enterprises.
  • Creation of a National People’s Militia to arrest all puppet politicians serving the Empire of Money and prosecute criminal bankers for dealing in fraudulent debt assets and derivatives.
  • Election of new National People’s Assemblies from these Councils.
  • Creation of new People’s Currencies in different regions and municipalities.
  • Creation of a single new National People’s Currency to unite these local currencies.
  • Centralisation of money creation and money supply in the hands of National People’s Banks.
  • Rejection of all so-called ‘rescue packages’ from international banks such as the ECB and IMF – which just impose yet more debt to the banks – and debt can’t be paid with more debt!
  • Defaulting on all ‘national debt’ to the international banks,
  • Halting all cuts in public spending and ‘austerity measures’ – using publicly created money to aid the people and restore the economy – not to put billions back into the banks.
  • Cancellation of all privatisation programs and monetary outflows from the nation.
  • Promotion of ‘inter-nationalist’ cooperation and trading agreements with other states, nations and peoples who win back power and sovereignty from the international banks.
  • Bringing down the Dollar and Euro i.e. calling upon the Greek people to restore the Drachma, the Germanic to restore the Deutschmark – and the people of the United States to restore an equivalent of the Greenback (the first paper currency to be issued as publicly created money).