Marxism, Western vs. Eastern

     Karl Marx was disproven back in the 19th Century. Attempts to correct all those errors while saving the sacrosanct conclusion quickly divided into a “Western” way and an “Eastern” way, as James Lindsay explains, which is quoted in full below due to the limitations of Twitter/X embeds:

Here’s a complicated explanation of some big currents that are happening in the world according to Marxist theory put into practice.

Understanding what’s happening in the People’s Republic of China and BRICS as well as throughout the Western democratic republics requires understanding how Marxists view the dialectical progression of history from one stage to another and what they’ve learned about that progression through the 20th century’s experiments with Marxism.

Marx believed he had a comprehensive and systematic science of history, which he called “dialectical materialism.” There are a number of places and ways he characterized it, but for our purposes, it’s enough to start with his famous first chapter of the Manifesto of the Communist Party (Communist Manifesto) where he and Engels wrote this:

“The history of all hitherto existing society† is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master‡ and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.”

The idea is that all of human history is in fact defined by the conflict of classes, and the nature of that conflict changes over time through a series of revolutions in how (mostly material/economic) structures manifest. A simplistic rendering of Marx’s and Engel’s view goes like this:

  1. (Estranged, local) tribal communal (communist, lowercase c) societies give way through conquest to
  2. Slaveholding societies, which through eventual slave revolts become
  3. Feudal/aristocratic (and mercantilist) societies, which through liberal revolutions in private property rights and industrial revolution become
  4. Capitalistic/bourgeois societies, which “socialize” production and therefore eventually face a high-drama, violent revolution where the “expropriators are expropriated” to be forced into a
  5. Socialist economy/society, which eventually withers away of its own accord because it has no ambition to maintain the class distinctions and conflict that maintain class society and that necessitate a state, thus eventually arriving (back) at
  6. Communism: a transcendent, stateless, classless society of ultimate plenty.

Marx described this final state (a full sublation of the original tribal communism) elsewhere (in his 1844 Manuscripts) this way:

“Communism as the positive transcendence of private property as human self-estrangement, and therefore as the real appropriation of the human essence by and for man; communism therefore as the complete return of man to him­ self as a social (i.e., human) being—a return accomplished consciously and embracing the entire wealth of previous development.”

Marx believed this model is a true science of history (in the Hegelian sense of a “system of science”) that must play out. The only question was how to awaken the workers to bring about the necessary violent revolution that would push capitalism into socialism, which literally no one ever figured out.

In the 1910s, everything in the world changed with regard to this model. Marx was technically already falsified, but Marxists don’t care about that and don’t stop. Two schools of thought emerged: Eastern Marxism (Soviet Communism) and Western Marxism (Cultural Marxism). Neither matched Marx’s predictions or the “immortal science of Marxism,” which is not only not science, but is also evil, wrong, and a twisted, Luciferian faith system.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives | Tagged | 1 Comment

With Bureaucracy, Form Follows Function

“What a tangled web we create

“When we first practice to regulate!”

     There are few things in life more burdensome than red tape and bureaucracy. However, fixing this problem is easier said than done. It is a minimalist folly to think that the default is good and that regulation is a bad that can be removed by firing the regulators who interrupt good things from being good. No matter how many regulators your fire, the regulations remain and punishment for not getting regulator approval could easily come in arbitrary and capricious ways.

     Nor can you just fix things by demanding ten regulatory repeals for every new regulation.   Sometimes a regulation, such as in the form of agency/department guidance can clarify things and actually reduce the overall regulator burden. Similarly, hiring more people, particularly those who understand what they are doing, can reduce the regulator burden of those being regulated.

     Regulations are a tangled web, quite often, but must be taken apart stepwise and carefully.   That this is difficult is neither an excuse to do nothing nor an excuse to cut the proverbial Gordian Knot only to find out that that knot was there for a reason. A judicious application of Chesterton’s Gate (or Fence) would be the wisest path to regulatory reform and the optimal path to achieving the necessity of reducing bureaucratic shackles.

     The core root is the very regulator structure and the legally required scope it must encompass.   Without reforming that, something which no one is seriously talking about, any budget cuts, personnel firing, or meme-based “agencies” will be superficial in effect.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

News of the Week (August 3rd, 2025)

 

News of the Week for August 3rd, 2025


Continue reading

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Comments Off on News of the Week (August 3rd, 2025)

Quick Takes – Not-so-medical Aid In Dying: Vermont via Zoom; Washington Qualified Providers; Condemned To Death By Artificial Intelligence

     Another “quick takes” on items where there is too little to say to make a complete article, but is still important enough to comment on.

     The focus this time: Do you want a Butlerian Jihad? Because this is how you get a Butlerian Jihad

     First, a little mood music:

     Carrying on…

Death, Rx

     A nurse could proscribe your death over Zoom. Thanks technology!

“Vermont has repeatedly expanded its assisted suicide law since it first passed. Nonresidents are allowed to receive lethal prescriptions, and assisted suicide can be prescribed via Zoom or Skype.

“Now, a bill has been filed that would allow nondoctor “clinicians” to prescribe death. From H.B. 75:

“‘This bill proposes to authorize naturopathic physicians, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants to participate in the processes established in Vermont’s patient choice at end-of-life laws. It would also allow naturopathic physicians to sign and issue do-not-10 resuscitate (DNR) orders and clinician orders for life-sustaining treatment’

“In other words, a suicidal patient would be able to access poison pills without ever seeing a doctor or having an in-person consultation or examination.”

Continue reading

Posted in Healthcare, Progressives, Science | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment

Stakeholder Capitalism Isn’t

     Corporations. What are they good for? Limiting the liability of investors and owners who are innocent of any potential shenanigans, of course. An incorporated company limits the liability of a stockholder to the value of the stock rather than making each and every partial owner fully liable for anything done by anyone else involving the company. This is a good thing. But even with that, it is the stockholders company; they own it.   Stockholders elect Boards to act on their behalf and under their collective vote. A corporation itself does not have rights, but the stockholders through their elected representatives and those corporate officers chosen thereby that exercise their rights through whatever proxies are so approved.

     That is hos “Capitalism” works: Owners deciding how their assets are used and appointing representatives to take care of the particulars on their behalf. What isn’t “Capitalism” is “Stakeholder Capitalism” whereby a company must answer not to the people who own it, but to a more socially democratic voice of elitists playing a Fascist game of Corporatism. In such cases, these elitists rule over corporations via approved executives and business elite.

     This isn’t the free-market under the Rule of Law or the property rights of owners; this is the very Leftist face of Leviathan. Alas, even states known for limited or small government are not immune from the lure of the imposition of “Stakeholder Capitalism”. Sadly, Nevada is just such an example of this being able to happen:

“Nevada passed a law in 2017 that weakened shareholder primacy. The paper compares Nevada corporations before and after the law on a variety of measurements. It finds that after the law passed:

  • Corporate governance worsened in several ways:
    • More relatives of executives served on corporate boards.
    • Board independence and director attendance rates declined.
    • Auditors raised more concerns about accounting.
    •  Firms are more likely to be flagged by the SEC for their reports to that agency.
  • Shareholders had less ability to monitor corporations and take them to court over the worsening governance.
  • CEO excess pay increased, and the connection between CEO pay and performance weakened.
  • The valuation of Nevada corporations dropped relative to corporations in other states.
  • Corporations made more acquisitions, but they were viewed as lower quality by the markets.
  • Lenders viewed Nevada corporations as less creditworthy.
  • Corporations’ investment decisions are more discretionary and manager-driven.

“Perhaps most disappointingly for stakeholder capitalism activists, the ESG scores of Nevada corporations went down after the law was passed. The environmental score dropped by 7 percent; the social score dropped by 16.6 percent; and the governance score dropped by 15.4 percent. ‘The decrease in the Social score is the most direct evidence that stakeholders do not benefit from the Bill since this score incorporates how employees, customers, and the community in which a firm operates are treated by the firm,’ the paper says.”

     If top-down government dictates demonstrate anything, it is that everything gets worse, even the distance to their eschatonal goals. Stockholders have something tangible to gain or lose; for Stakeholders, it’s all tabletop game or LARP to mess around with as a lark.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , , , , | Comments Off on Stakeholder Capitalism Isn’t

The Untraditional Right

     When you reject “conserving” and embrace a “no rules” and reject “muh principles”, you do nothing but hollow yourself out and create a void that is quickly filled with what is readily at hand (i.e. the “praxis” of Critical Theory).   Remember what Sun-Tzu said about those who knew not themselves and you’ll understand how much of an own-goal that all is. As “Liberty Belle” explains, which is quoted in full below due to the limitations of Twitter/X embeds:

These people are bratty children. They’re ignorant of the intellectual traditions & metaphysical foundation that undergirds the American founding. Thus, they aren’t conceptualizing what it would mean for us all if we lose what makes us America. This is no masterclass, it’s a sad indictment of our society & our education.

Delusional like the Left, they think they can take the Constitution & cherry-pick what they want out of it, while disregarding the parts they don’t want. They want to appropriate affects of the American founding, while violating its ethos. They want its benefits, while lacking understanding of its mechanisms.

They have no moral anchor with which to ground their system. It’s all social constructivism. It’s utilitarian pragmatism, & Libido Dominandi— lust for power, & whatever is right or true is whatever is useful for their ends, the truth is evolving & socially constructed.

It’s a rejection of natural law & the universal character of inherent rights (applicable to all men, for all times) in favor of arbitrary application of various rules that suit their ends. It’s a complete rejection of the American founding.

But these young people being seduced by these stupid notions are like children— they cry when things don’t work out for them the way they want (“I don’t care about the Constitution” —> “I got fired for expressing my views, this is an injustice”). This is what children, or people incapable of second-order thinking do.

But, it’s also understandable how we’ve reached this place, when our educational system is put into context.

We aren’t taught what Classical Liberalism is, or its unique American strain. The term “liberal” (when we mean classically liberal) has been conflated with “progressive” (this was done intentionally decades ago), & the Left has had a decades (century, actually)-long head start on eroding American Classical Liberalism, thus deracinating us from our roots. We don’t even know what we have. When a people can be blinded to their birthright, they won’t cry out against its theft.

We need to teach people what it is that we must be fighting to preserve, & to understand how that translates to the things they value, & would mourn the loss of. If people can understand the value of something, they’ll fight for it, & when enough people do this, there will be enough force & momentum to make a difference, & to make the system work for us all.

I see it all the time, people ignorant of what the American founding stands for, & how it came to be, calling for the end of liberalism— while also proclaiming their right to freedom of speech & religion, right to own property, to bear arms & asserting state’s rights. They would cut off their noses to spite their faces.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives, Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 1 Comment

Empowering “Family Friends” In California

     The California Legislature Grand Soviet is considering a bill, AB 495, involving custody of children who may have a parent subject to Federal immigration issues.   However, snuck in there is a provision expanding power over a child to “nonrelative extended family member[s]” who are empowered to “authorize medical care and dental care for the minor”.   Needless to say, in California “medical care” includes puberty blockers and transgender surgery. Furthermore, this directed “medical care” can not be rescinded by the state:

“The affidavit shall be valid until the parent, legal guardian, person having legal custody, or caregiver rescinds the affidavit.”

     But a parent could rescind this, right? Not if they’ve been deported. But even if the parent hasn’t been deported—or even legally deportable—these directive would stand indefinitely if the parent isn’t told about them! This act explicitly “imposes a limitation on the public’s right of access” with immigration being the fig leaf excuse. Oh, and proof of guardianship is not necessary: “A parent’s signature or seal or signature of the court is not required.”

     And just who are these “Nonrelative extended family member”?

“‘Nonrelative extended family member’ means any adult caregiver who has an established familial or mentoring relationship with the child or who has an established familial relationship with a relative of the child.”

     Further, nonrelative extended family members explicitly include:

“Extended relative, teacher/counselor, medical professional, clergy/godparent, neighbor, family friend, previously lived with or cared for the child, previously lived with or cared for a relative of the child.

“[…]

“‘Nonrelative extended family member’ for the purposes of item 6, means an adult caregiver who has an established familial relationship with a relative of the child, or a familial or mentoring relationship with the child. The parties may include, but are not limited to, teachers, medical professionals, clergy, neighbors, and family friends.”

     Now, a true family friend or neighbor may certainly gain legal guardianship through existing legal procedures and attendant requirements, but these requirements in this bill are so watered down as to be practically no existent. All a person has to do is show up with a kid, declare themselves a “family friend”, and then sign up said kid for “medical” care which is inclusive of gender transition treatments! This is clearly a backdoor way of circumventing parental rights.

     Some remember those old PSAs that showed a stranger driving up to a kid saying the kids parents are in the hospital and that they were “family friends” or similar, all in order to trick the kid into being kidnapped. This is like that except with the government aiding and abetting.

     Regardless of how much you may think that the current Administration’s tactics and policies regarding immigration are beyond that pale, that can not ever be a justifiable fig leaf for sterilizing and mutilating kids in the name of healthcare.

Continue reading

Posted in Progressives | Tagged , , , | 1 Comment

News of the Week (July 27th, 2025)

 

News of the Week for July 27th, 2025


Continue reading

Posted in News of the Week | Tagged | Comments Off on News of the Week (July 27th, 2025)

Firing Line Friday: The Problems in the Philippines

     In the hopes of encouraging a more civil, and illuminating, discourse, here is another episode of William F. Buckley, Jr.’s “Firing Line”.

     It seems rare these days for an intelligent debate on foreign policy to be had, especially between member of Congress from opposing political parties… on television no less! But let us look back forty years at such an intelligent discussion between Henry Hyde and Stephen Solarz, with William F. Buckley, Jr., who discuss the problems in the Philippines.

     Until next Friday.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | 1 Comment

     Due to a death in the family, there will be no posts for at least a week or two.

Posted on by The Political Hat | Comments Off on No Posting For A While