One of the most fascinating and terrifying things that a historically literate millennial can observe is the startling collaboration between the ideologies of cultural-marxism and neo-liberal capitalism, whose ideological predecessors were once sworn enemies. To understand how these seemingly insurmountable differences in vision were overcome to create the neo-liberal Marxist behemoth that dominates everything from Western academia, to high capitalism, to politics, to state bureaucracy, one needs to observe one crucial aspect on which Marxist and Neo-liberals have been in agreement since both came into existence. Neither ideology considers any value beyond the material, which is to say, neither believes there is any truth to the human condition, or genuine ways to sustain human wellbeing, that can be described in non-material terms. According to both ideologies, material factors are the only ones that can truly lead to human improvement nad happiness, and anything non-material are either pesky delusions that stand in the way of increased material wealth or excesses in the human experience which signal that the prior imperative of material wellbeing having been attained (see Mazlow’s hierarchy of needs).
Reading the Economist, Forbes, or Financial Times, after the brexit vote would demonstrate a startled incredulity on par with that displayed after the trump election, and at numbers showing the rate of increase of anti-eu “populist” parties all around Europe. The Neo-liberal authorship and readership of these publications were dumbstruck that the poorest Europeans reject the EU, despite their farms, and material wellbeing relying on the transnational capitalist machine. They were particularly confused by the polling evidence that those parts of England that rely the heaviest on EU subsidies were the most likely to vote brexit. Their utter, almost childlike, confusion at this entirely predictable phenomenon is remarkably similar to that exhibited by another detached power-hungry elite class with world-shaping ambitions, the Marxists. So is their insidious fury at how the lower classes could be so stupid as to stand in the way of progress to preserve such anti-progressive lies as nationhood, ethnicity, religion, culture or (gasp) race.
One of the key tenets of Marxism 1.0 was that capitalism was an inherently ruinous system which worked against the well being of the common man. As history now relates, they may have been correct, though not for the reasons they thought. This is because Marxists, like neo-liberals adhere to a materialist philosophy. Neither has the tools to process the information that normal, healthy humans hold many values beyond the material, and that more often than not, material wealth exists to facilitate the expression of those higher and deeper values and not the other way round.
It was this shortcoming which led to a crisis in Marxism around the turn of the century. This crisis derived from the fact that none of the Marx-Engels predictions, whose instantiations in reality were supposed to be an inevitable consequence of the contradictory tensions within capitalism, actually occurred. The proletariat had not risen up against their capitalist overlords, and thus the Marxist toolkit designed to carry them from revolution to a workers paradise did not have the chance to be employed anywhere beyond where it was imposed by force.
In fact, not only did the working class not embrace Marxism with open arms, but by 1914 they were laying down their lives to defend the national identities which were supposedly no more than tools created by their capitalist masters to ensure division among the proletariat of Europe and thus compliance. How could it be, when this obvious truth was so eloquently disseminated to these people through Marxist literature, and when the utopian Marxist solution was so patently within the grasp of the proletariat, if they would just reach out and take it, would they continue to lay down their lives to die for such lies as national and ethnic identity?
Not ones to let the foolish mistakes of the masses stand in the way of their worker’s paradise (elites always know best after all), Marxist ideologues went to work pursuing a solution to this problem. They came to the conclusion that, rather than those who command the means of production, the proximate cause of European workers failing to achieve their paradise, was in fact European nations and cultures themselves. These obvious illusions that hid from the proletariat the eminent truth of dialectical materialism, would thus have to be removed, if the transnational Marxist utopia were ever to be realized.
Ergo, the Marxist solution to the problem of apparent proletariat idiocy, was to take it upon themselves to destroy the ancient cultures histories and nations that European peoples hold dear so that, free of the opiate of such non-material things, the proletariat would see their predicament and finally rise up to produce the workers paradise they should have brought for decades prior. In an effort to strategize on how to remove those pesky obstacles to a Marxist utopia that seem to have been overlooked by Marx himself, wealthy Marxists (who could afford to sustain a worldview that disconnected from reality) set to work to reshape reality to be more aligned with their world-view. But how could one achieve such a seemingly futile task? How does one reshape reality itself to reflect ones’ personal ideology and not the other way around? One would literally have to discredit reality itself, and prioritize subjective human experience over it. Enter, the Frankfurt school.
In an effort to interrogate the foolish nonsense of “race” “culture” “tradition” “ethnicity”, and even “family”, which stood in the way of the parochial and idiotic proletariat from doing what is best for them, the wealthy hair to a grain empire, Felix Weil, founded the “Institute for Social Research” in Germany. Funding the work of a number of disaffected Marxists whose failed ideology and culturally unacceptable proclivities often left them without employment, the Frankfurt school was born.
The goal of the Frankfurt school, as described by Max Horkheimer, one of its chief members, is to be “suspicious of the very categories of better, useful, appropriate, productive and valuable, as those are understood in the present order”. Of course this unending, relentless criticism does not criticize why it is “useful” to criticize certain things, “valuable” to be critical at all, or “productive” to expend the energies in these criticisms. That is because the Frankfurt school is philosophically indefensible from its inception, something its founders likely knew. It is internally inconsistent at its most basic level, insofar as it criticizes all notions of value and utility, making itself incapable of proposing why doing such a thing has any value or utility. However, it’s founders may also have been aware that the layers upon layers of culture destroying rhetoric that its method would produce through the social sciences would keep the critics of its own “critical” system so occupied with a relentless hydra of “critical” theories taking so many different forms and targeting so many different aspects European culture in such a rhetorically pleasing way, that it would be nearly impossible to destroy the process at its root.
Most of the agents in the various social sciences who employ the tenets of the Frankfurt school likely don’t even know they are doing it, don’t know it works toward a Marxist end, and don’t know that what the are doing as “literary critics” is the same as what those in “political science”, “anthropology”, “African studies”, “Gender studies”, etc. etc. are doing (in the end they are all sociologists). The Frankfurt school brilliantly organizes a cacophonous academic rampage against the entirety of European civilization without ever having to organize or centrally plan, since its inherent instability, which derives from its internal incoherence, and ease of use, makes it dynamically replicate and adapt to fill whatever tasks are required of it.
Further, the absurd, philosophically indefensible simplicity and nihilism of the Frankfurt school, means that its various manifestations have no observable substance of their own, since their goal is not to build but tear down, or in their own words “deconstruct”. With no recognizable philosophical substance of its own to signify its presence, with no need to build, the Frankfurt school can hide itself in the rubble of the various cultural edifices that its infinite nonsense disciplines tear down, and appear to be different disciplines dealing with different issues in different ways. It can create an army of adherents across numerous disciplines, who never have to meet to discuss and plan, since the Frankfurt school plans nothing and requires no logically consistent discussion. It need only destroy.
The astonishing effectiveness of the Frankfurt school may be observed in its “long march” through the institutions. It occupies both the establishment and anti-establishment institutions in Western society, a tension sustainable only because of its inherent internal incoherence and lack of any logical reasoning to justify its existence. Those in the Western establishment employ their resources toward mimetic warfare against “anti-social behaviour”, “racism”, “islamophobia”, “xenophobia”, and indeed any other predictable effort of a threatened people to preserve some notion of nationhood, race, and culture. They bring in millions of non-Europeans which destroy traditional cultural systems regulating human interaction and create more and social problems, which, in the absence of traditional cultural systems for regulating human interaction, can only be corrected by more and more social programmes that require more and more state control, creating more and more jobs for bureaucrats who push for more and more immigration. More immigration is permanently required to destroy the counter-progressive traditional cultural systems of European peoples that stand in the way of state and trans-state institutions. Incidentally, this leaves deracinated atomized individuals with no accessible values in their life, and no formal cultural practices with which to fill their free time beyond displaying wealth and purchasing products, but more on that later.
Meanwhile the “anti-establishment”, organized most often through establishment universities and occasionally funded by the likes of George Soros, seek to “deconstruct” the “oppressive categories” of race, ethnicity, gender and even species, while permanently railing against the family unit as the height of “patriarchal oppression”. This further destabilizes Western societies, by further eroding ancient cultures, decreasing the European birthrate, which adds more fuel to calls for increased “immigration” from the establishment.
The murderous “anti-establishment” shrieks against “capitalism” is of no concern to neo-liberals, whose chimeric fusion with banks, multinationals, state infrastructure, supra-state organizations like the EU and UN, make them as much the ally to the “anti-establishment” Marxists as the enemy. Neo-liberals can comfortably “negotiate” with the “anti-establishment”, by meeting their demands for an infinite slew of new state social programmes, to which neo-liberals sell their own services and expertise, while they fund the posts of “anti-establishment” academics to produce an infinite supply of new “critical theory” agitators, who produce less cohesive societies, demand ever more “social policies” to correct the deficiencies they created, and thus produce for more profit for those who supply these services.
Concerned about the social dislocation, and consequential “racist” backlash, produced by the mass immigration which occurred under the French socialists and conservatives? Don’t worry, we got this guy Macron who will reinvigorate the society with capitalistic optimism and ensure the correct social programmes are created and funded to reintegrate the social dislocation caused by ethnic conflict, and to fight back the “racism” which occurred as a response to that social dislocation. This will of course require economic growth, which can only be attained through more immigration, which will erode more indigenous French culture (which doesn’t exist), produce more ethnic tension, and require more social policies, which in turn will require more immigration to fund. But by the time Macrons’ hand in this calamity is noticed, not to worry, there will be someone else from the same universities, with the same ideology, with exactly what you need to solve the problems Macron created. They will be there to ensure that the nefarious nationalist candidate is beaten at the polls. After all, it’s the nationalistic racists that are the real problem.
Ultimately, through a perfect concoction of:
- Weaponized guilt (racial, cultural, environmental, etc.) that destroys the morale of the European race, its ethnic groups, and nations, and the conditions for indigenous members of a nation to reproduce
- Using the Frankfurt school to “deconstruct” European cultures, and thus remove all ties to common cultural histories
- Requiring and “celebrating” mass immigration and ethnic interbreeding to eventually produce a more pliable European population with no firm ethnic, national or racial identity
Perhaps the “new European man” could finally be realized. For the Marxist this ideal man would be free of his oppressive identities and finally be in a position to realize the worker’s paradise. For the neo-liberal this ideal man will be the perfect consumer, with no other way to spend his time and no other values to absorb his energies than to work and consume.
At the current rate of immigration into Europe viciously enforced by Marxists, and with the relentless “long march” through Western institutions that attempt to erode European cultures at every possible opportunity, they may yet succeed in permanently destroying the European peoples to usher in a new age in which nothing beyond the material is even known, let alone valued.
It is no surprise that, with their common belief that humans hold no value beyond the material, neoliberal capitalists find it entirely appropriate to combine their efforts with their one time adversaries. Since the target of both the Marxists and capitalists this time are discrete peoples, with discrete cultures, idiosyncratic histories, and values beyond materialism, their successful cooperation over the past 40 years has been disturbing. While there is a difference between the ideal deracinated, perfect individual capitalist consumer, and the awakened collective proletariat body, the efforts to attain both overlap with unholy precision. The destruction of European nations, peoples, and cultures.
While deriving from radically different philosophies, the overlaps of modern Marxism, cultural or otherwise, and neo-liberal capitalism demonstrate why one should not be surprised that they work together so successfully and are increasingly indistinguishable from each other. Both ideas were produced by and are most powerfully pushed by deracinated elites whose wealth affords them the ability to hold a world-view at odds with reality. This is as much true of the academy, as in big business, politics, and state bureaucracy. Both work to impose their will on the masses whose perceived idiocy is standing in the way of “progress” toward a grand utopia project. Both are at war with the parochial, backward and “racist” desires among the lower-classes to protect their identities in terms of ethnic history, culture, tradition, religion, race, and nation. Both of their sets of activities, projected into the future, would result in an indistinguishable planet-wide brownish human biomass with no recognizable or discrete cultures, nations, races, ethnicities, histories or traditions. And, as always, neither seems capable of understand how or why humans would see the world in any way, or hold any values other than, the material.