Afternoon Comrades.
One of the many striking, recurring contradictory realities of our time that I have been noticing pop up a lot lately is the false inevitable that “this” is as good as it gets. For one, all that means is that a number of Western Democracies is in an election cycle and the assholes in charge are as per usual avoiding reality, let alone accountability. Whilst we all know that not only is “everything” getting worse, more importantly, we do know that this inevitability is horseshit.
Capitalism, hailed by its proponents as the pinnacle of human achievement, is deeply ingrained in the fabric of Western democracy. However, when scrutinized through both analytical and Marxist lenses, it becomes evident that capitalism serves not as a liberating force, but rather as a tool of oppression perpetuated by the ruling class to maintain their dominance.
Analytically, capitalism is usually portrayed as a system of free markets and individual liberty. However, this narrative conveniently overlooks the inherent contradictions and inequalities that arise within capitalist societies. Within the actual reality of our material existence the ruling class, consisting of wealthy elites and corporations, wields immense power and influence over political and economic systems, perpetuating their own interests at the expense of the masses.
The ruling class perpetuates the notion that capitalism is the only viable system, instilling a sense of resignation and acceptance among the populace. Obviously, the point being to grind us all down. This ideological hegemony serves to maintain the status quo, stifling dissent and alternative visions of society. By monopolizing the means of production and controlling the flow of information, the ruling class ensures that any challenges to the capitalist system are marginalized and delegitimized.
Moreover, the ruling class utilizes various mechanisms, such as mass media and political propaganda, to propagate the idea that there is no alternative to capitalism. This false consciousness is deeply ingrained in the collective psyche, leading many to believe that any deviation from the capitalist model would spell disaster. Consequently, genuine alternatives to capitalism are dismissed as utopian fantasies or radical extremism, effectively foreclosing the possibility of meaningful change.
This deeply ingrained belief in the inevitability of capitalism not only stifles dissent but also perpetuates a dangerous reality where the ruling class maintains its stranglehold on power. By convincing the masses that there is no alternative, the ruling class solidifies its grip on society, ensuring that their interests remain paramount.
The Fallacy of the End of History
Contrary to the narrative of the "end of history," which posits that liberal democracy and capitalism have triumphed as the ultimate forms of human governance and economic organization, history and philosophical reasoning suggest otherwise. Throughout history, there have always been alternatives to existing systems, and the notion that there is no alternative is not only fallacious but also dangerous.
The concept of the "end of history" originates from the work of political theorist Francis Fukuyama, particularly his essay "The End of History?" published in 1989 and later expanded into a book titled "The End of History and the Last Man" in 1992. Fukuyama's thesis posits that the collapse of communism and the victory of liberal democracy over alternative ideologies marked the endpoint of humanity's ideological evolution. According to Fukuyama, liberal democracy, with its emphasis on individual rights, free markets, and the rule of law, represented the ultimate form of political organization and socio-economic system. He argued that with the triumph of liberal democracy, there would be no more grand ideological conflicts or major shifts in political structures, leading to a state of "universal homogenous state."
Fukuyama's argument drew heavily from the ideas of constructed by Hegel, particularly the concept of the "end of history" as the realization of human freedom and the culmination of the dialectical process of history. Fukuyama adapted Hegel's framework to argue that liberal democracy represented the fulfillment of humanity's long quest for political and ideological perfection.
Horseshit.
Fukuyama's assertion of the complete triumph of liberal democracy is premature and exaggerated. They point to the persistence of authoritarian regimes, the rise of illiberal democracies, and the erosion of democratic norms and institutions in some Western countries as evidence that liberal democracy is far from being universally accepted or implemented.
Fukuyama failed to anticipate new challenges and conflicts that emerged in the post-Cold War era, such as terrorism, environmental degradation, economic inequality, and identity politics. These issues have sparked renewed ideological debates and geopolitical tensions, challenging the notion of a stable and harmonious "end of history."
Fukuyama's thesis has been criticized for its Eurocentric bias and neglect of cultural and civilizational diversity. Critics argue that the spread of liberal democracy does not necessarily entail the homogenization of cultures and values, as different societies may interpret and practice democracy in ways that reflect their unique historical, cultural, and religious backgrounds.
Historically, societies have evolved and transformed, adopting various forms of governance and economic systems to suit their needs and aspirations. From ancient civilizations to modern nation-states, the trajectory of human history has been marked by constant change and adaptation. The idea that any particular system represents the end point of historical development ignores the dynamic nature of human societies and the potential for alternative pathways.
Furthermore, the concept of dialectical materialism, central to Marxist philosophy, underscores the dialectical interplay between opposing forces within society. According to Marx, historical progress is driven by the contradictions inherent within the capitalist mode of production, leading to the eventual emergence of new social relations and forms of governance. This dialectical view of history rejects the notion of a static endpoint, instead emphasizing the potential for revolutionary change and transformation.
In light of these historical and philosophical insights, the idea of the end of history appears increasingly untenable. Human societies are characterized by their ability to adapt, innovate, and challenge existing norms and institutions. To suggest that we have reached the end of this process is not only ahistorical but also dangerously complacent.
The point being, especially in light of so many upcoming election circus’ here in the west I find it important to remind us, more so than them, that anther world is possible and on the horizon. Their entire schtick exists to maintain their power over our labour and the subsequent profits, nothing else.
The beginning is here and we serve the revolution.
Yours, warmly,
V.