There is much about The Communist Manifesto [2] that is valid from a Rightist viewpoint – if analyzed from a reactionary perspective. One does not need to be a Marxist to accept that a dialectical interpretation of history is one of several methods by which history can be studied, albeit not in a reductionist sense, but in tandem with other methods such as, in particular, the cyclical morphology of Oswald Spengler,[1] the economic morphology of civilizations as per Brooks Adams,[2] the cultural vitalism of Yockey,[3] and the heroic vitalism of Carlyle.[4] Marx, after all, did not conceive dialectics, he appropriated the theory from Hegel, who had followers from both Left and Right, and whose doctrine was not that of the materialism of the Left. The American Spenglerian, Francis Parker Yockey, pointed this out:
Being inwardly alien to Western philosophy, Marx could not assimilate the ruling philosopher of his time, Hegel, and borrowed Hegel’s method to formulate his own picture. He applied this method to capitalism as a form of economy, in order to bring about a picture of the Future according to his own feelings and instincts.[5]
Indeed, Marx himself repudiated Hegel’s dialectics, whose concept of “The Idea” seemed of a religious character to Marx, who countered this metaphysical “Idea” with the “material world”:
My dialectic method is not only different from the Hegelian, but is its direct opposite. To Hegel, the life-process of the human brain, i.e. the process of thinking, which, under the name of “the Idea,” he even transforms into an independent subject, is the demiurgos of the real world, and the real world is only the external, phenomenal form of “the Idea.” With me, on the contrary, the ideal is nothing else than the material world reflected by the human mind, and translated into forms of thought.[6]
Hegel, on the other hand, wrote about how the historical dialectic worked on the “national spirit,” his philosophy being a part of the Rightist doctrinal stream that was receiving an important impetus form the German thinkers in antithesis to “English thought” based on economics, which imbued Marx’s thinking and hence mirrored capitalism. Hegel wrote, for example:
The result of this process is then that Spirit, in rendering itself objective and making this its being an object of thought, on the one hand destroys the determinate form of its being, on the other hand gains a comprehension of the universal element which it involves, and thereby gives a new form to its inherent principle. In virtue of this, the substantial character of the National Spirit has been altered, – that is, its principle has risen into another, and in fact a higher principle.
It is of the highest importance in apprehending and comprehending History to have and to understand the thought involved in this transition. The individual traverses as a unity various grades of development, and remains the same individual; in like manner also does a people, till the Spirit which it embodies reaches the grade of universality. In this point lies the fundamental, the Ideal necessity of transition. This is the soul – the essential consideration – of the philosophical comprehension of History.[7]
Dialectically, the antithesis, or “negation” as Hegel would have called it, of Marxism is “Reactionism,” to use Marx’s own term, and if one applies a dialectical analysis to the core arguments of The Communist Manifesto, a practical methodology for the sociology of history from a Rightist perspective emerges.
Conservatism and Socialism
In English-speaking states at least, there is a muddled dichotomy in regard to the Left and Right, particularly among media pundits and academics. What is often termed “New Right” or “Right” there is the reanimation of Whig-Liberalism. If the English wanted to rescue genuine conservatism from the free-trade aberration and return to their origins, they could do no better than to consult the early twentieth-century philosopher Anthony Ludovici, who succinctly defined the historical dichotomy rather than the commonality between Toryism and Whig-Liberalism, when discussing the health and vigor of the rural population in contrast to the urban:
. . . and it is not astonishing therefore that when the time of the Great Rebellion[8] the first great national division occurred, on a great political issue, the Tory-Rural-Agricultural party should have found itself arrayed in the protection and defence of the Crown, against the Whig-Urban-Commercial Trading party. True, Tory and Whig, as the designation of the two leading parties in the state, were not yet known; but in the two sides that fought about the person of the King, the temperament and aims of these parties were already plainly discernible.
Charles I, as I have pointed out, was probably the first Tory, and the greatest Conservative. He believed in securing the personal freedom and happiness of the people. He protected the people not only against the rapacity of their employers in trade and manufacture, but also against oppression of the mighty and the great . . .[9]
It was the traditional order, with the Crown at the apex of the hierarchy, which resisted the money-values of the bourgeoisie revolution, which manifested first in England and then in France, and over much of the rest of mid-nineteenth century Europe. The world remains under the thrall of these revolutions, as also under the Reformation that provided the bourgeoisie with a religious sanction.[10]
As Ludovici pointed out, in England at least, and therefore as a wider heritage of the English-speaking nations, the Right and the free trade liberals emerged as not merely ideological adversaries, but as soldiers in a bloody conflict during the seventeenth century. The same bloody conflict manifested in the United States in the war between the North and South, the Union representing Puritanism and its concomitant plutocratic interests in the English political sense; the South, a revival of the cavalier tradition, ruralism and the aristocratic ethos. The South itself was acutely aware of this tradition. Hence, when in 1863 Confederate Secretary of State Judah P. Benjamin was asked for ideas regarding a national seal for the Confederate States of America, he suggested “a cavalier” based on the equestrian statue of Washington in Capitol Square at Richmond, and stated:
It would do just honor to our people. The cavalier or knight is typical of chivalry, bravery, generosity, humanity, and other knightly virtues. Cavalier is synonymous with gentleman in nearly all of the modern languages . . . the word is eminently suggestive of the origin of Southern society as used in contradistinction to Puritan. The Southerners remain what their ancestors were, gentlemen.[11]
This is the historical background by which, much to Marx’s outrage, the remnant of the aristocracy sought anti-capitalist solidarity with the increasingly proletarianized and urbanized peasants and artisans in common opposition to capitalism. To Marx, such “Reactionism” (sic) was an interference with the dialectical historical process, or the “wheel of history,” as will be considered below, since he regarded capitalism as the essential phase of the dialectic leading to socialism.
Spengler, one of the seminal philosopher-historians of the “Conservative Revolutionary” movement that arose in Germany in the aftermath of the First World War, was intrinsically anti-capitalist. He and others saw in capitalism and the rise of the bourgeoisie the agency of destruction of the foundations of traditional order, as did Marx. The essential difference is that the Marxists regarded it as part of a historical progression, whereas the revolutionary conservatives regarded it as a symptom of decline. Of course, since academe is dominated by mediocrity and cockeyed theories, this viewpoint is not widely understood in (mis)educated circles.
Of Marxism, Spengler stated in his essay devoted specifically to the issue of socialism:
Socialism contains elements that are older, stronger, and more fundamental than his [Marx’s] critique of society. Such elements existed without him and continued to develop without him, in fact contrary to him. They are not to be found on paper; they are in the blood. And only the blood can decide the future.[12]
In The Decline of The West [3], Spengler states that in the late cycle of a civilization there is a reaction against the rule of money, which overturns plutocracy and restores tradition. In Late Civilization, there is a final conflict between blood and money:
. . . [I]f we call these money-powers “Capitalism,” then we may designate as Socialism the will to call into life a mighty politico-economic order that transcends all class interests, a system of lofty thoughtfulness and duty-sense that keeps the whole in fine condition for the decisive battle of its history, and this battle is also the battle of money and law. The private powers of the economy want free paths for their acquisition of great resources . . .[13]
In a footnote to the above, Spengler reminded readers regarding “capitalism” that, “in this sense the interest-politics of the workers’ movements also belong to it, in that their object is not to overcome money-values, but to possess them.” Concerning this, Yockey stated:
The ethical and social foundations of Marxism are capitalistic. It is the old Malthusian “struggle” again. Whereas to Hegel, the State was an Idea, an organism with harmony in its parts, to Malthus and Marx there was no State, but only a mass of self-interested individuals, groups, and classes. Capitalistically, all is economics. Self-interest means: economics. Marx differed on this plane in no way from the non-class war theoreticians of capitalism – Mill, Ricardo, Paley, Spencer, Smith. To them all, Life was economies, not Culture… All believe in Free Trade and want no “State interference” in economic matters. None of them regard society or State as an organism. Capitalistic thinkers found no ethical fault with destruction of groups and individuals by other groups and individuals, so long as the criminal law was not infringed. This was looked upon as, in a higher way, serving the good of all. Marxism is also capitalistic in this . . .[14]
Something of the “ethical socialism” propounded by Rightists such as Spengler and Yockey is also alluded to in the above passage: “It is based on the State [as] an Idea, an organism with harmony in its parts,” anathema to many of today’s self-styled “conservatives,” but in accord with the traditional social order in its pre-materialistic epochs. It is why Rightists, prior to the twentieth-century reanimated corpse of nineteenth-century free trade, advocated what Yockey called “the organic state” in such movements as “corporatism,” which gave rise to the “New States” during the 1930s, from Salazar’s Portugal and Dollfuss’ Austria to Vargas’ Brazil. Yockey summarizes this organic social principle: “The instinct of Socialism however absolutely preludes any struggle between the component parts of the organism.”[15] It is why one could regard “class struggle” literally as a cancer, whereby the cells of the organism war among themselves until the organism dies.
Caste & Class
The “revolutionary conservatism” of Spengler and others is predicated on recognizing the eternal character of core values and institutions that reflect the cycle of cultures in what Spengler called their “spring” epoch.[16] A contrast in ethos and consequent social order between traditional (“spring”) and modern (“winter”) cycles of a civilization is seen in such manifestations as caste as a metaphysical reflection of social relations,[17] as distinct from class as an economic entity.
Organizationally, the guilds or corporations were a manifestation of the divine order which, with the destruction of the traditional societies, were replaced by trade unions and professional associations that aim only to secure the economic benefits of members against other trades and professions, and which seek to negate the duty and responsibility one had in being a proud member of one’s craft, where a code of honor was in force. Italian “revolutionary conservative” philosopher Julius Evola stated of this that, like the corporations of Classical Rome, the medieval guilds were predicated on religion and ethics, not on economics.[18] “The Marxian antithesis between capital and labor, between employers and employees, at the time would have been inconceivable.”[19] Yockey stated:
Marxism imputed Capitalistic instincts to the upper classes, and Socialistic instincts to the lower classes. This was entirely gratuitous, for Marxism made an appeal to the capitalistic instincts of the lower classes. The upper classes are treated as the competitor who has cornered all the wealth, and the lower classes are invited to take it away from them. This is capitalism. Trade unions are purely capitalistic, distinguished from employers only by the different commodity they purvey. Instead of an article, they sell human labor. Trade-unionism is simply a development of capitalistic economy, but it has nothing to do with Socialism, for it is simply self-interest.[20]
The Myth of “Progress”
While Western Civilization prides itself on being the epitome of “progress” through its economic activity, it is based on the illusion of a Darwinian lineal evolution. Perhaps few words have more succinctly expressed the antithesis between the modernist and the traditional conservative perceptions of life than the ebullient optimism of the nineteenth century biologist, Dr. A. R. Wallace, when stating in The Wonderful Century [4] (1898):
Not only is our century superior to any that have gone before it but . . . it may be best compared with the whole preceding historical period. It must therefore be held to constitute the beginning of a new era of human progress. . . . We men of the 19th Century have not been slow to praise it. The wise and the foolish, the learned and the unlearned, the poet and the pressman, the rich and the poor, alike swell the chorus of admiration for the marvellous inventions and discoveries of our own age, and especially for those innumerable applications of science which now form part of our daily life, and which remind us every hour or our immense superiority over our comparatively ignorant forefathers.[21]
Like Marx’s belief that Communism is the last mode of human life, capitalism has the same belief. In both worldviews, there is nothing other than further “progress” of a technical nature. Both doctrines represent the “end of history.” The traditionalist, however, views history not as a straight line from “primitive to modern,” but as one of continual ebb and flow, of cosmic historical tides, or cycles. While Marx’s “wheel of history” moves forward, trampling over all tradition and heritage until it stops forever at a grey, flat wall of concrete and steel, the traditionalist “wheel of history” revolves in a cycle on a stable axis, until such time as the axis rots – unless it is sufficiently oiled or replaced at the right time – and the spokes fall off;[22] to be replaced by another “wheel of history.”
Within the Western context, the revolutions of 1642, 1789, and 1848, albeit in the name of “the people,” sought to empower the merchant on the ruins of the Throne and the Church. Spengler writes of the later era: “. . . And now the economic tendency became uppermost in the stealthy form of revolution typical of the century, which is called democracy and demonstrates itself periodically, in revolts by ballot or barricaded on the part of the masses.” In England, “. . . the Free Trade doctrine of the Manchester School was applied by the trades unions to the form of goods called ‘labour,’ and eventually received theoretical formulation in the Communist Manifesto of Marx and Engels. And so was completed the dethronement of politics by economics, of the State by the counting-house . . .”[23]
Spengler calls Marxian types of socialism “capitalistic” because they do not aim to replace money-based values, “but to possess them.” Concerning Marxism, he states that it is “nothing but a trusty henchman of Big Capital, which knows perfectly well how to make use of it.”[24] Further:
The concepts of Liberalism and Socialism are set in effective motion only by money. It was the Equites, the big-money party, which made Tiberius Gracchus’ popular movement possible at all; and as soon as that part of the reforms that was advantageous to themselves had been successfully legalized, they withdrew and the movement collapsed.
There is no proletarian, not even a communist, movement that has not operated in the interests of money, in the directions indicated by money, and for the time permitted by money – and that without the idealist amongst its leaders having the slightest suspicion of the fact.[25]
It is this similarity of spirit between capitalism and Marxism that has often manifested in the subsidy of “revolutionary” movements by plutocracy. Some plutocrats are able to discern that Marxism and similar movements are indeed useful tools for the destruction of traditional societies that are hindrances to global profit maximization. One might say in this sense that, contrary to Marx, capitalism is not a dialectical stage leading to Communism, but that Marxian-style socialism is a dialectical phase leading to global capitalism.[26]
Capitalism in Marxist Dialectics
While what is popularly supposed to be the “Right” is upheld by its adherents as the custodian of “free trade,” which in turn is made synonymous with “freedom,” Marx understood the subversive character of free trade. Spengler cites Marx on free trade, quoting him from 1847:
Generally speaking, the protectionist system today is conservative, whereas the Free Trade system has a destructive effect. It destroys the former nationalities and renders the contrast between proletariat and bourgeois more acute. In a word, the Free Trade system is precipitating the social revolution. And only in this revolutionary sense do I vote for Free Trade.[27]
For Marx, capitalism was part of an inexorable dialectical process that, like the progressive-linear view of history, sees humanity ascending from primitive communism, through feudalism, capitalism, socialism, and ultimately – as the end of history – to a millennial world of Communism. Throughout this dialectical, progressive unfolding, the impelling force of history is class struggle for the primacy of sectional economic interests. In Marxian economic reductionism history is relegated to the struggle:
[The struggle between] freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed . . . in constant opposition to one another, carried on uninterrupted, now hidden, now open, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.[28]
Marx accurately describes the destruction of traditional society as intrinsic to capitalism, and goes on to describe what we today call “globalization.” Those who advocate free trade while calling themselves conservatives might like to consider why Marx supported free trade and described it as both “destructive” and as “revolutionary.” Marx saw it as the necessary ingredient of the dialectic process that is imposing universal standardization; this is likewise precisely the aim of Communism.
In describing the dialectical role of capitalism, Marx states that wherever the “bourgeoisie” “has got the upper hand [he] has put an end to all feudal, patriarchal, idyllic relations.” The bourgeoisie or what we might call the merchant class – which is accorded a subordinate position in traditional societies, but assumes superiority under “modernism” – “has pitilessly torn asunder” feudal bonds, and “has left remaining no other nexus between man and man than naked self-interest,” and “callous cash payment.” It has, among other things, “drowned” religiosity and chivalry “in the icy water of egotistical calculation.” “It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms, has set up that single, unconscionable freedom – Free Trade.”[29] Where the conservative stands in opposition to the Marxian analysis of capitalism is in Marx’s regarding the process as both inexorable and desirable.
Marx condemned opposition to this dialectical process as “reactionary.” Marx was here defending Communists against claims by “reactionaries” that his system would result in the destruction of the traditional family, and relegate the professions to mere “wage-labor,” by stating that this was already being done by capitalism anyway and is therefore not a process that is to be resisted – which is “Reactionism” – but welcomed as a necessary phase leading to Communism.
Uniformity of Production & Culture
Marx saw the constant need for the revolutionizing of the instruments of production as inevitable under capitalism, and this in turn brought society into a continual state of flux, of “everlasting uncertainty and agitation,” which distinguishes the “bourgeoisie epoch from all other ones.”[30] The “need for a constantly expanding market” means that capitalism spreads globally, and thereby gives a “cosmopolitan character” to “modes of production and consumption in every country.” In Marxist dialectics, this is a necessary part of destroying national boundaries and distinctive cultures as a prelude to world socialism. It is capitalism that establishes the basis for internationalism. Therefore, when the Marxist rants against “globalization,” he does so as rhetoric in the pursuit of a political agenda; not from ethical opposition to globalization.
Marx identifies the opponents of this capitalist internationalizing process not as Marxists, but as “Reactionists.” The reactionaries are appalled that the old local and national industries are being destroyed, self-sufficiency is being undermined, and “we have . . . universal inter-dependence of nations.” Likewise in the cultural sphere, “national and local literatures” are displaced by “a world literature.”[31] The result is a global consumer culture. Ironically, while the US was the harbinger of internationalizing tendencies in the arts, at the very start of the Cold War the most vigorous opponents of this were the Stalinists, who called this “rootless cosmopolitanism.”[32] It is such factors that prompted Yockey to conclude that the US represented a purer form of Bolshevism – as a method of cultural destruction – than the USSR. It is also why the diehard core of international Marxism, especially the Trotskyites, ended up in the US camp during the Cold War and metamorphosed into “neo-conservatism,”[33] whose antithesis in the US is not the Left, but paleoconservatism. These post-Trotskyites have no business masquerading as “conservatives,” “new” or otherwise.
With this revolutionizing and standardization of the means of production comes a loss of meaning that comes from being part of a craft or a profession, or “calling.” Obsession with work becomes an end in itself, which fails to provide higher meaning because it has been reduced to that of a solely economic function. In relation to the ruin of the traditional order by the triumph of the “bourgeoisie,” Marx said that:
Owing to the extensive use of machinery and to division of labor, the work of the proletarians has lost all individual character, and, consequently, all charm for the workman. He becomes an appendage of the machine, and it is only the most simple, most monotonous, and the most easily acquired knack, that is required of him . . .[34]
Whereas the Classical corporations and the medieval guilds fulfilled a role that was metaphysical and cultural in terms of one’s profession, these have been replaced by the trade unions as nothing more than instruments of economic competition. The entirety of civilization has become an expression of money-values, but preoccupation with the Gross Domestic Product cannot be a substitute for more profound human values. Hence it is widely perceived that those among the wealthy are not necessarily those who are fulfilled, and the affluent often exist in a void, with an undefined yearning that might be filled with drugs, alcohol, divorce, and suicide. Material gain does not equate with what Jung called “individuation” or what humanistic psychology calls “self-actualization.” Indeed, the preoccupation with material accumulation, whether under capitalism or Marxism, enchains man to the lowest level of animalistic existence. Here the Biblical axiom is appropriate: “Man does not live by bread alone.”
The Megalopolis
Of particular interest is that Marx writes of the manner by which the rural basis of the traditional order succumbs to urbanization and industrialization; which is what formed the “proletariat,” the rootless mass that is upheld by socialism as the ideal rather than as a corrupt aberration. Traditional societies are literally rooted in the soil. Under capitalism, village life and localized life are, as Marx said, made passé by the city and mass production. Marx referred to the country being subjected to the “rule of the towns.”[35] It was a phenomenon – the rise of the city concomitant with the rise of the merchant – that Spengler states is a symptom of the decay of a civilization in its sterile phase, where money values rule.[36]
Marx writes that what has been created is “enormous cities”; what Spengler calls “Megalopolitanism.” Again, what distinguishes Marx from traditionalists in his analysis of capitalism is that he welcomes this destructive feature of capitalism. When Marx writes of urbanization and the alienation of the former peasantry and artisans by their proletarianization in the cities, thereby becoming cogs in the mass production process, he refers to this not as a process to be resisted, but as inexorable and as having “rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life.”[37]
“Reactionism”
Marx points out in The Communist Manifesto that “Reactionists” (sic) view with “great chagrin”[38] the dialectical processes of capitalism. The reactionary, or the “Rightist,” is the anti-capitalist par excellence, because he is above and beyond the zeitgeist from which both capitalism and Marxism emerged, and he rejects in total the economic reductionism on which both are founded. Thus the word “reactionary,” usually used in a derogatory sense, can be accepted by the conservative as an accurate term for what is required for a cultural renascence.
Marx condemned resistance to the dialectical process as “Reactionist”:
The lower middle class, the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the artisan, the peasant. All these fight against the bourgeoisie, to save from extinction their existence as fractions of the middle class. They are therefore not revolutionary, but conservative. Nay more, they are reactionary, for they try to roll back the wheel of history. If by chance they are revolutionary, they are so only in view of their impending transfer into the proletariat, they thus defend not their present, but their future interests, they desert their own standpoint to place themselves at that of the proletariat.[39]
This so-called “lower middle class” is therefore inexorably condemned to the purgatory of proletarian dispossession until such time as it recognizes its historical revolutionary class role, and “expropriates the expropriators.” This “lower middle class” can either emerge from purgatory by joining the ranks of the proletarian chosen people, become part of the socialist revolution, and enter a new millennium, or it can descend from its class purgatory, if it insists on trying to maintain the traditional order, and be consigned to oblivion, which might be hastened by the firing squads of Bolshevism.
Marx devotes Section Three of his Communist Manifesto to a repudiation of “reactionary socialism.” He condemns the “feudal socialism” that arose among the old remnants of the aristocracy, which had sought to join forces with the “working class” against the bourgeoisie. Marx states that the aristocracy, in trying to reassert their pre-bourgeois position, had actually lost sight of their own class interests in siding with the proletariat.[40] This is nonsense. An alliance of the dispossessed professions into what had become the so-called proletariat, with the increasingly dispossessed aristocracy, is an organic alliance which finds its enemies as much in Marxism as in capitalism. Marx raged against the budding alliance between the aristocracy and those dispossessed professions that resisted being proletarianized. Hence, Marx condemns “feudal socialism” as “half echo of the past, half menace of the future.”[41] It was a movement that enjoyed significant support among craftsmen, clergymen, nobles, and literati in Germany in 1848, who repudiated the free market that had divorced the individual from Church, State, and community, “and placed egoism and self-interest before subordination, commonality, and social solidarity.”[42] Max Beer, a historian of German socialism, stated of these “Reactionists,” as Marx called them:
The modern era seemed to them to be built on quicksands, to be chaos, anarchy, or an utterly unmoral and godless outburst of intellectual and economic forces, which must inevitably lead to acute social antagonism, to extremes of wealth and poverty, and to a universal upheaval. In this frame of mind, the Middle Ages, with its firm order in Church, economic and social life, its faith in God, its feudal tenures, its cloisters, its autonomous associations and its guilds appeared to these thinkers like a well-compacted building . . .[43]
It is just such an alliance of all classes – once vehemently condemned by Marx as “Reactionist” – that is required to resist the common subversive phenomena of free trade and revolution. If the Right wishes to restore the health of the cultural organism that is predicated on traditional values, then it cannot do so by embracing economic doctrines that are themselves antithetical to tradition, and which were welcomed by Marx as part of a subversive process.
This article is a somewhat different version of an article that originally appeared in the journal Anamnesis, “Marx Contra Marx [5].”
Notes
1. Oswald Spengler (1928), The Decline of The West (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1971).
2. Brooks Adams, The Law of Civilisation and Decay: An Essay on History [6] (London: Macmillan & Co., 1896).
3. Francis Parker Yockey, Imperium [7] (Sausalito, California: The Noontide Press, 1969).
4. Eric Bentley, The Cult of the Superman: A Study of the Idea of Heroism in Carlyle & Nietzsche [8](London: Robert Hale Ltd., 1947).
5. Francis Parker Yockey, op. cit., p. 80.
6. Karl Marx (1873), Capital, “Afterword” (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1970), Vol. 1, p. 29.
7. G. W. F. Hegel (1837), The Philosophy of History [9], “Introduction: The Course of the World’s History[10].”
8. The Cromwellian Revolution.
9. Anthony Ludovici, A Defence of Conservatism [11] (1927), Chapter 3, “Conservatism in Practice.”
10. Max Weber, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, Asceticism and the Spirit of Capitalism[12] (London: Unwin Hyman, 1930).
11. R. D. Meade & W. C. Davis, Judah P. Benjamin: Confederate Statesman [13] (Louisiana State University Press, 2001), p. 270.
12. Oswald Spengler (1919), Prussian and Socialism (Paraparaumu, New Zealand: Renaissance Press, 2005), p. 4.
13. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of The West, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 506.
14. Francis Parker Yockey, op. cit., p. 81.
15. Francis Parker Yockey, ibid., p. 84.
16. Oswald Spengler, op. cit. The tables of “contemporary” cultural, spiritual and political epochs in The Decline can be found online here [14].
17. The only aspect more widely recalled today being the “divine right of Kings.”
18. Julius Evola, Revolt against the Modern World [15] (Rochester, Vermont: Inner Traditions international, 1995), p. 105.
19. Julius Evola, , ibid., p. 106.
20. Francis Parker Yockey, op. cit., p. 84.
21. Asa Briggs (ed.), The Nineteenth Century: The Contradictions of Progress [16] (New York: Bonanza Books, 1985), p. 29.
22. Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer:
Things fall apart, the centre cannot hold;
Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world . . . W. B. Yeats, “The Second Coming [17],” 1921.
23. Oswald Spengler, The Hour of Decision [18] (New York: Alfred A Knopf, 1934), pp. 42-43.
24. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of The West, op. cit., Vol. 2, p. 464.
25. Oswald Spengler, ibid. p. 402.
26. K. R. Bolton, Revolution from Above [19] (London: Arktos, 2011).
27. Oswald Spengler, The Hour of Decision, op. cit., p. 141; citing Marx, Appendix to Elend der Philosophie, 1847.
28. Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1975), p. 41.
29. Karl Marx, ibid., p. 44.
30. Karl Marx, ibid., p. 47.
31. Karl Marx, ibid., pp. 46-47.
32. F. Chernov, “Bourgeois Cosmopolitanism and Its Reactionary Role [20],” Bolshevik: Theoretical and Political Magazine of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) ACP(B), Issue #5, 15 March 1949, pp. 30-41.
33. K. R. Bolton, “America’s ‘World Revolution’: Neo-Trotskyist Foundations of U.S. Foreign Policy [21],” Foreign Policy Journal, May 3, 2010.
34. Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, op. cit., p. 51.
35. Karl Marx, ibid., p. 47.
36. Oswald Spengler, The Decline of The West, op. cit., Vol. 2, Chapter 4, (a) “The Soul of the City,” pp. 87-110.
37. Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, op. cit., p. 47.
38. Karl Marx, ibid, p. 46.
39. Karl Marx, The Communist Manifesto, ibid., 57.
40. Karl Marx, ibid., III “Socialist and Communist Literature, 1. Reactionary Socialism, a. Feudal Socialism,” p. 77.
41. Karl Marx, ibid., p. 78.
42. Max Beer, A General History of Socialism and Social Struggle [22] (New York: Russell and Russell, 1957), Vol. 2, p. 109.
43. Max Beer, ibid., pp. 88-89.
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Tout change pour Drieu à partir de l’attaque du Parlement par les ligues d’extrême droite du 6 février 1934. Dans les semaines qui suivent l’événement, Drieu part avec son ami Bertrand de Jouvenel en Allemagne où il rencontre Otto Abetz, futur ambassadeur du IIIème Reich à Paris pendant l’Occupation, qui lui propose de réaliser une série de conférence dans le pays. La succession d’affaires de corruption touchant la IIIème République et les premières expériences fascistes à l’étranger encouragent Drieu à croire à une régénérescence de la France par le fascisme afin d’empêcher le pays de sombrer dans une décadence orchestrée par les Francs-Maçons, la démocratie parlementaire, les gauchistes et les juifs qui l’obsèdent. La même année Drieu écrit un nouvel essai politique, Socialisme-Fascisme, dans lequel il déploie sa nouvelle idéologie. Deux ans plus tard il adhère au PPF de Jacques Doriot, premier parti français ouvertement fasciste, et devient éditorialiste dans l’organe de propagande du mouvement : l’Émancipation Nationale. C’est lors de ces années de changements radicaux qu’il écrit son plus grand roman à forte teneur autobiographique : Gilles.
L’Ecole dite « républicaine » ou « de la République » est conçue comme une «maison d’éducation » organisée «d’après l’idéal entrevu par la Révolution Française » (Ferry). Son objectif assigné sera de « changer d’ici à quelques générations les habitudes et les idées des populations », de « former et reformer » pour « préparer à notre pays une génération de bon citoyens ». (Ferry, Lettre aux Instituteurs, 1883). Cette mission, on le sait, sera remplie par les « hussards noirs de la République » qui apprendront à des générations d’enfants que la République est la France, voire la quintessence de la France, et que la contester revient à renier sa patrie.
Evola, afferma Lami: “imposta…il problema filosofico in chiave individuale, o meglio, ‘esistenziale’, e risolve il metodo filosofico nella filosofia, e quest’ultima in una sorta di fenomenologia dell’individuo” . Da tale asserzione si evincono la potenza e l’originalità, nel panorama filosofico d’allora, non solo del momento speculativo evoliano, ma del suo percorso esistenziale. Infatti, l’attraversamento che egli compie dell’attualismo gentiliano, ritenuto vertice insuperato del pensiero europeo, prende le mosse, e qui Lami coglie pienamente nel segno, da Michelstaedter, dalla sua Persuasione. Questa, nell’esegesi lamiana, si configura quale: “…piacevolissima sensazione, quel piacere morale che si persegue nell’atto della liberazione, dell’auto-redenzione dal macchinamento sociale” .
Bigre, quel est donc ce roman français capable d'"impressionner" le héraut du "monde libre" ? Il s'appelle Le Camp des Saints. Signé Jean Raspail, il est sorti en 1973. Et, depuis, cette épopée, qui raconte le débarquement apocalyptique d'un million d'immigrants entre Nice et Saint-Tropez, est devenue une sorte de livre culte. Mieux, depuis quelques semaines, ce roman sulfureux prend des allures de phénomène : sa huitième (!) édition, parue début février 2011, s'est déjà écoulée à 20 000 exemplaires, portée, notamment, par une longue apparition dans l'émission de Frédéric Taddeï, Ce soir ou jamais. Il est vrai que les circonstances ont fourni des attachés de presse un peu particuliers à ce Camp des Saints : les milliers de pauvres Tunisiens accostant à Lampedusa sur leurs barques de fortune...
En France aussi, le livre poursuit son petit rythme de croisière - autour de 5 000 exemplaires par an. A telle enseigne, fait rarissime, qu'après être sorti deux fois en édition de poche (en 1981 et 1989), ce "long-seller" est ensuite réédité en grand format ! "Je suis un écrivain professionnel, justifie Raspail. Or, le poche ne rapporte rien. En grand format, je gagne un peu plus..." La dernière édition datait de 2002. Un an auparavant, le 20 février 2001, un bateau rempli de Kurdes était venu s'échouer très exactement à 50 mètres de la villa où fut écrit Le Camp des Saints. On s'attribuerait des dons de prophétie pour moins que ça... "Il y a un an, j'ai pensé que nous étions à un tournant de l'Histoire, dans la mesure où la population active et urbaine de la France pourrait être majoritairement extra-européenne en 2050, croit savoir Raspail. J'ai donc suggéré à Nicole Lattès, directrice générale de Laffont, de le rééditer avec une nouvelle préface." Mais, lorsque les services juridiques de la maison d'édition découvrent ce texte, intitulé "Big Other", leurs cheveux se dressent sur leur tête : "Impubliable, nous risquons des poursuites pour incitation à la haine raciale !" Raspail, lui, refuse de changer la moindre syllabe. Et appelle à la rescousse un ami avocat, Jacques Trémollet de Villers, pas exactement un gauchiste lui non plus - il a notamment défendu le milicien Paul Touvier. Mais bon plaideur : lors d'une "réunion de crise", longue de deux heures, aux éditions Robert Laffont, il parvient à retourner l'assemblée. On publiera, donc. Mais assorti d'un avant-propos du PDG de la maison, Leonello Brandolini, qui justifie la décision tout en prenant prudemment ses distances avec le fond du livre...
Les épigones de Nimier garderont donc le désabusement et s'efforceront de faire figure, pâle et spectrale figure, dans une société qui n'existe plus que pour faire disparaître la civilisation. La civilisation, elle, est une eau fraîche merveilleuse tout au fond d'un puits; ou comme des souvenirs de dieux dans des cités ruinées. L'allure dégagée de Roger Nimier est plus qu'une « esthétique », une question de vie ou de mort: vite ne pas se laisser reprendre par les faux-semblants, garder aux oreilles le bruit de l'air, être la flèche du mot juste, qui vole longtemps, sinon toujours, avant son but.
Qu'en est-il de ce qui s'enfuit et de ce qui demeure ? Chaque page de Roger Nimier semble en « répons » à cette question qui, on peut le craindre, ne sera jamais bien posée par l'âge mûr, par la moyenne, - dans laquelle les hommes entrent de plus en plus vite et sortent de plus en plus tard, - mais par la juvénilité platonicienne qui emprunta pendant quelques années la forme du jeune homme éternel que fut et demeure Roger Nimier, aimé des dieux, animé de cette jeunesse « sans enfance antérieure et sans vieillesse possible » qu'évoquait André Fraigneau à propos de l'Empereur Julien.
Au plan individuel, le questionnement identitaire révèle un sentiment de perte de sens au sein des sociétés modernes. Dans son ouvrage Les sources du moi. La formation de l’identité moderne, Charles Taylor, en faisant la généalogie de l’identité moderne, a montré que celle-ci s’est notamment construite sur une conception instrumentale du monde, c’est-à-dire un monde vu comme un simple mécanisme que la raison doit s’attacher à objectiver et à contrôler. Or, cette vision instrumentale du monde, héritée du cartésianisme, et qui a connu son plein épanouissement au XXème siècle, s’est révélée un puissant facteur de désymbolisation [10], synonyme de perte de sens. Ainsi, cette crise, interprétée à travers le prisme de l’identité, apparaît dans une large mesure comme une crise de la modernité, une crise affectant l’homme faustien dont parlait Spengler dans Le Déclin de l’Occident, c’est-à-dire « un individu caractérisé par une insatisfaction devant tout ce qui est fini, terminé », un homme qui « ne croit plus qu’il peut savoir ce qui est bien et mal, ce qui est juste et injuste. » [11]
En second lieu, on observe le développement de mouvements identitaires, notamment à caractère ethnique, reposant sur la mise en récit d’un passé interprété comme humiliant et qui justifierait en tant que tel une reconnaissance non seulement symbolique mais aussi juridique. Il s’agit là de l’exploitation (non exempte, bien souvent, d’instrumentalisation) d’une mémoire, d’un imaginaire victimaire visant à réclamer des compensations aux supposés coupables (ou à leurs descendants), et aboutissant à nourrir un sentiment de revanche voire de haine et ainsi à fortifier une identité collective autour d’un ennemi commun. Aux Etats-Unis des mouvements de ce type invoquent la mémoire de l’esclavage pour dénoncer le traitement supposément spécifique dont feraient l’objet, de la part de la police, les membres de la communauté noire (cf. le mouvement Black Lives Matter). C’est aussi la voie suivie par une partie des populations immigrées issues des pays anciennement colonisés à l’encontre des ex-pays colonisateurs comme la France. Ces revendications identitaires trouvent un écho favorable, notamment parmi les élites politiques, économiques, judiciaires et médiatiques qui conçoivent l’affirmation identitaire des minorités comme une réaction légitime face à une culture occidentale européocentriste considérée comme un système de domination aliénant, oppressant par nature pour ces minorités. Ainsi, le traitement médiatique des faits de délinquance tend à occulter délibérément le nom des délinquants quand ils sont d’origine étrangère avec en arrière-fond l’idée que ces délinquants sont et restent par essence des victimes qu’il convient de protéger [19]. Les politiques de quota et de discrimination positive dans l’accès à l’emploi ou à l’université s’inscrivent également dans ce schéma de pensée. Comme le relève Christopher Lasch, on est passé d’une demande d’égalité et d’abolition des discriminations fondées sur la race (mouvement des droits civiques aux Etats-Unis dans les années 1960) à la revendication et à l’instauration d’un traitement de faveur au profit des minorités raciales au motif que ces minorités, éternelles victimes du racisme des Blancs, auraient par nature un droit à réparation [20]. Ce type de mesure qui avalise les revendications identitaires de nature victimaire tend à nourrir les conflits ethniques au sein de la société [21].
A cet égard, dans son ouvrage Les vertiges de la guerre – Byron, les philhellènes et le mirage grec, Hervé Mazurel retrace une des étapes importantes de la prise de conscience d’une identité européenne à travers le combat civilisationnel du mouvement philhellène dans les années 1820 en vue de libérer la Grèce, matrice de la civilisation européenne, de l’envahisseur ottoman, jugé coupable des pires atrocités (massacres, viols), immortalisées par la Scène des massacres de Scio de Delacroix et dont témoigne également le recueil de poèmes Les Orientales de Victor Hugo. Or tout cet arrière-fond historique ré-émerge aujourd’hui dans les consciences non seulement au moment des attentats terroristes mais également à l’occasion des évènements dramatiques liés aux mouvements migratoires (viols de Cologne…).
Or, la théorie du « doux commerce » chère aux penseurs libéraux des Lumières apparait, dans une large mesure, comme un mythe. En réalité, les intérêts commerciaux se sont révélés être de puissants facteurs d’exacerbation des conflits. Comme le relève Pascal Gauchon (photo), « pour que règne la paix, il fallait imposer le commerce par la guerre » [32]. De plus, la tendance à l’uniformisation du monde par la mondialisation libérale entraine, aujourd’hui, en retour, des mouvements de fragmentation, sources de nouveaux conflits (montée des fondamentalismes religieux notamment) [33]. Pascal Gauchon observe qu’« alors que les frontières nationales s’abaissent, les frontières intérieures se multiplient : les communautés fermées se multiplient, les immeubles s’abritent derrière des barrières digitales et le code postal définit l’identité (…) » [34]. Apparaissent donc de plus en plus clairement tous les ferments de la guerre civile à mesure que les sociétés s’hétérogénéisent sous l’effet de l’immigration de masse qu’encourage la mondialisation libérale, ce que Pascal Gauchon appelle « les guerres de la mondialisation ». Quant au projet de libération de l’individu, il apparait lui aussi très largement comme une utopie, tant il est vrai que les politiques libérales, notamment au plan économique, se sont traduites par de nouvelles aliénations ainsi que l’ont montré les travaux de Jean Baudrillard sur la société de consommation. Aliénation par la consommation via la publicité qui est infligée à l’individu-consommateur conçu comme « un système pavlovien standard, modélisable par quelques lois comportementales et cognitives simples, manipulable et orientable par les professionnels du marketing » [35]. Aliénation au travail que subit le travailleur moderne « occupant des emplois provisoires, dépersonnalisés, délocalisés en fonction des besoins de l’économie » [36].
Enfin, sur le plan économique, des travaux ont montré qu’une forte hétérogénéité ethnique au niveau local allait de pair avec une dégradation des services publics essentiels comme l’éducation ou encore les infrastructures routières et nécessitait des transferts sociaux plus importants que dans les zones à forte homogénéité ethnique [42]. Ainsi, les auteurs de cette étude en concluent que les sociétés à forte hétérogénéité se caractérisent par une moindre importance accordée à la qualité des biens publics, un développement du paternalisme et des niveaux de déficit et d’endettement plus élevés. Dans le même sens, Christophe Guilluy dans son ouvrage, la France périphérique, souligne que la politique de la ville s’est avérée être un puissant instrument de redistribution au profit quasi-exclusif des banlieues dites « sensibles », c’est-à-dire des zones à forte concentration immigrée [43].
Si la très grande diversité des mouvements populistes rend illusoire tout accord sur une définition unique, on peut néanmoins tenter d’énoncer les principales caractéristiques du populisme. Tout d’abord, il s’agit d’un style de discours, un appel au peuple qui exalte une communauté (peuple demos, c’est-à-dire la communauté des citoyens et/ou peuple ethnos, c’est-à-dire une communauté ethno-culturelle) en tant qu’elle est porteuse de valeurs positives (vertu, bon sens, simplicité, honnêteté,…) et qu’elle s’oppose à une élite au pouvoir, considérée comme délégitimée. Ensuite, le populisme ne s’incarne pas dans un régime politique particulier (une démocratie ou une dictature peuvent avoir une orientation populiste) ni même ne revêt en soi un contenu idéologique déterminé : il se caractérise par la recherche d’une 3ème voie entre le libéralisme et le marché d’une part et le socialisme et l’Etat-Providence de l’autre [48]. En cela, il se veut un dépassement du clivage droite-gauche [49].
Pour Huntington, depuis la fin du mouvement des droits civiques dans les années 1965 qui a fait des Afro-Américains des citoyens de plein exercice, l’identité nationale américaine ne se définit plus par un critère racial et ne revêt plus que deux dimensions : une dimension culturelle (c’est-à-dire la culture anglo-protestante des XVIIème-XVIIIème siècles, héritée des Pères fondateurs) et une dimension politique (« the Creed ») constituée des grands principes à vocation universaliste que sont la liberté, l’égalité, la démocratie, les droits civiques, la non-discrimination, l’Etat de droit [52] (principes qui sont, en quelque sorte, l’équivalent de ce que l’on désigne habituellement en France par « valeurs républicaines »). Or, Huntington souligne que l’identité américaine est gravement menacée pour deux raisons.
On l’a vu les réveils identitaires peuvent s’analyser comme une tentative de réponse à une crise identitaire caractérisée par la perte de sens au niveau individuel et par la dissolution des identités collectives. Comme le relève Patrick Buisson (photo), cela conduit à se poser « la question qui est au centre de la société française : comment redéployer les solidarités perdues, comment relier de nouveau les individus entre eux ? » [63] Autrement dit, l’enjeu est de retrouver des cadres, des horizons communs qui fassent sens pour l’individu contemporain. A cet égard, il est sans doute illusoire de croire que reviendra le temps où l’identité individuelle était entièrement absorbée par les identités collectives issues des communautés traditionnelles (religieuses, familiales…) et ne s’en distinguaient pas ou peu. L’identité individuelle est devenue plus mouvante, fluide. Avec la modernité, la composante choisie de l’identité a pris le pas sur la dimension héritée.
Dans le domaine économique, un large champ d’actions à vocation identitaire parait ouvert, qui peut s’appuyer sur des fondements théoriques permettant de s’abstraire de la pure logique marchande. A cet égard, le courant de la Nouvelle Sociologie Economique auquel on peut rattacher les travaux de Mark Granovetter (photo) sur les réseaux, vise notamment à remettre en cause la vision sous-socialisée des relations économiques qui est celle de l’individualisme méthodologique et qui fonde les théories néo-classiques. Pour Granovetter, l’économie n’est qu’un sous-ensemble qui s’inscrit au sein d’un ensemble plus vaste et construit à partir d’une logique proprement sociale.
Ces atrocités, Léon Bloy les empile comme un gamin pressé de saisir le moment où sa construction de pièces de bois va commencer à vaciller, mais nous ne devons pas douter que l'écrivain, lui, s'il le pouvait, dresserait son horrible monument jusqu'au ciel, pour le fendre et laisser enfin couler le feu de l'Apocalypse. Ainsi le feu nettoierait une dernière fois cette fleuves de sang qui paraissent se jeter dans l'océan infini de la Douleur.
Despite experiencing – and somehow surviving – four and a half years of unimaginable violence and upheaval, Kantorowicz made a notably smooth transition back into civilian life. In the autumn of 1919 he enrolled at Heidelberg University to study economics in preparation for taking over the family business. A year later, however, he met the man who would change his plans and life forever. Among initiates, Heidelberg was then known as the capital of the “Secret Germany”, that select group of young (and some older) men united in their commitment to the vision and person of Stefan George, who at the time often spent long sojourns there. It is difficult now to understand the intense devotion, even veneration, George inspired in – and demanded from – his intimates. After beginning as a rarefied poet in the French symbolist mode in the 1890s, he gradually became one of the most powerful figures in German culture, attracting ever larger numbers of brilliant and energetic followers who placed themselves and their talents in the service of furthering the goals of the man they called der Meister. Elitist, anti-democratic, hostile to the Enlightenment values of rationality, equality and personal freedom, George and his circle promulgated a vision of a hierarchically ordered society in a future Germany, no longer “secret” but in every sense real, in which individuals would occupy the place assigned to them by nature and would be ruled by a supreme and omnipotent Führer – a word George and his followers did much to popularize.
Although Frederick II stirred fierce controversy within medievalist circles in Germany, owing mainly to its unapologetic mythologizing and overtly nationalist agenda, it was still recognized as a pathbreaking scholarly achievement. Such was its reputation that, astoundingly, it was on the strength of this single book alone that in the autumn of 1932 Kantorowicz was appointed as Professor Ordinarius, the highest rank in the German university system, to teach medieval history at the University of Frankfurt – despite the fact that he held a PhD in an unrelated field and, even more significantly, had not completed the otherwise requisite Habilitation (usually involving a second monograph on a different topic from the dissertation) and, perhaps most surprising of all, despite his being a Jew. In private, EKa made wry jokes about his implausibly rapid rise and almost unbelievable good luck. But he was also conspicuously quick to order new stationery displaying the coveted double prefix “Prof. Dr.” before his name.
Kantorowicz was enchanted. The climate was “like paradise”, he wrote to a Swiss friend; “I praise almost every day I am allowed to live here . . . the view of the Bay reminds me of Naples . . . the food is excellent, the wine not too bad”. Over the course of the next decade, despite his idiosyncratic spoken English, he became a popular and sought-after teacher, holding captivating seminars for the intellectually ambitious. One student recalled: “Entering promptly, faultlessly dressed, Kantorowicz brought into the classroom an almost tangible aura of intellectual excitement and anticipation . . . . Nothing was alien to this agile mind, roaming freely over the centuries as it unfolded the drama of man”.
Déjà au VI° siècle avant J.-C., Sun Tzu n’oublia pas dans L’art de la guerre, ouvrage fondamental de stratégie militaire, le facteur climatique, le déterminant par l’alternance de l’ombre et de la lumière, du chaud et du froid, et par le cycle des saisons. De nos jours, certitude et incertitude climatiques traduisent la difficulté d’une décision militaire. La certitude passe de l’information à la connaissance entraînant la conviction, l’incertitude résulte d’informations parcellaires et de raisonnements fragiles, la décision militaire étant toujours un dilemme comme le souligne Vincent Desportes dans Décider dans l’incertitude (2007). Incertitude climatique et décision militaire vont de pair avec les stratégie et géostratégie définies par Hervé Coutau Bégarie dans son Traité de stratégie (2011). 
Eine dieser Fragen, auf die es selbst in der Demokratie keine endgültige Antwort gibt, lautet so: Wozu und, besonders, für wen, sind Recht und Staat eigentlich da?
Die Forderung der Demokratie lautet bekanntlich „gleiches Recht für alle“. Ursprünglich war diese Forderung polemisch gemeint im Gegensatz zu „ungleiches Recht“, d.h. Privileg für einige wenige – der Kampf gegen das Privileg hat die demokratische Revolution von Anfang an begleitet. Er ist eine logische Konsequenz des demokratischen Gerechtigkeitsempfindens, welches Gleichheit mit Gerechtigkeit in eins setzt.
Und tatsächlich hält noch heute der radikale Demokrat Gleichheit für den Gipfel der Gerechtigkeit, Ungleichheit dagegen für die Verletzung eines Menschenrechts, z.B. der Menschenwürde. Die Idee der Verletzung ist hierbei keine Bagatelle, sondern bezeichnet tatsächlich eine der physischen Leidzufügung und Schindung genau entsprechende moralische Schädigung des Menschen. Wird letztere aufgrund ihrer Schwere als „Schändung“ bezeichnet, wird ersichtlich: Hier handelt es sich eher um die Beleidigung eines religiösen als eines moralischen Empfindens. Die Verletzung eines Menschenrechts ist Gotteslästerung innerhalb einer theokratischen Weltsicht, in der der Mensch nicht mehr bloß Herr der Schöpfung, sondern selbst Gott ist.
Problematik der Menschenrechtsverletzung und Dogmatik der „Priester“
Das Problem der Verletzung eines Menschenrechts bestünde nun nicht, wenn der Gott Mensch sich als Gott selbst verletzte, sich tatsächlich selbst lästerte. Die allgemeine Theokratie des Menschen – im weitesten Sinne „Herrschaft“, zu der auch Naturbeherrschung gehört –, die sich im Menschenreich in einer Priesterherrschaft, genauer: in einer „Ideokratie“ bestehend aus Intellektuellen und Juristen ausdrückt, hat aber nur solange bestand, wie das Problem selbst besteht.
Dass das Problem als solches aufrechterhalten wird, dafür sorgt die vom Priesterstand der Juristen und Intellektuellen eigens besorgte Dogmatik: Gott, der Mensch, kann sich an seinen eigenen Rechten nicht vergreifen, die Menschenrechte sind genauso unantastbar für den Menschen wie seine nur ihm zukommende Würde, Gott lästert nicht sich selbst. Diese dogmatische Lösung bringt dabei unausweichlich die Konsequenz einer Aufsplitterung mit sich: entweder die Aufsplitterung des Menschentums selbst in zwei Menschengattungen, oder aber die Aufsplitterung des Menschenreiches in zwei Menschenreiche. Ersteres führt zur Unterscheidung zwischen gottfernen, d.h. unmenschlichen Menschen und einem gottnahen, also „menschlichen“ und, von daher, „richtigen“ Menschen. „Menschlichkeit“ gilt dann als Ausweis der eigenen Göttlichkeit. Zweites führt zur Unterscheidung zwischen einem menschlichen Gottesreich („Reich des Guten“) sowie einem unmenschlichenTeufelsreich („Reich des Bösen“).
Zwischen Verteufelung und machtloser Göttlichkeit
Empirische Beispiele für beide Unterscheidungsformen bieten jeweils die USA und die europäischen Staaten: Während in den USA ein Terrorist seine grundsätzlichen Menschenrechte verwirkt hat – der Terrorist ist drüben ganz folgerichtig „des Teufels“, wenn nicht der Teufel selbst – werden in Europa den Terroristen mehr oder minder penibel, trotz allem, was sie angerichtet haben können, Menschenrechte zuerkannt.
Während in den USA der Menschenrechtsverletzer durch die Selbstverletzung, die eine Versündigung an der eigenen Gattung – ein wahrhaft luziferinischer Abfall! – darstellt, seine Rechte nicht nur verliert, sondern sogar selbst zum Teufel herabsinkt, sinkt er in Europa gegenüber der unangreifbaren Majestät sowie der eigenen Göttlichkeit der Menschenrechte ideell zur Machtlosigkeit herab: egal, was er auch tut, gegenüber seinen eigenen Menschenrechten ist er machtlos. Egal wie schlimm seine Gräueltaten auch sein mögen, sie tun dabei seiner eigenen Göttlichkeit nicht den geringsten Abbruch. Schlimmstenfalls kommt dabei ein „machtloser Gott“ – immerhin ein Gott – raus, der seinen sich gegen sich selbst versündigten Menschen gerade im „Reich des Bösen“ geparkt bzw. für immer abgestellt hat.
Aufgrund dieser theologischen Voraussetzung der real existierenden Demokratie kommt es in Europa immer wieder zu Spannungsverhältnissen gegenüber dem Staatsbetrieb. Dieser ist im Gegensatz zu den USA viel nüchterner, eben human-„untheologisch“ und, darum, unmenschlich. Der Staat in Europa verfährt grundsätzlich eben nicht nach demokratischem Stand-, sondern rein nach pragmatischem Gesichtspunkt, ohne darum ins Fadenkreuz radikal demokratisch gesinnter Intellektueller zu geraten.
Gerechtigkeit und gültiges Recht, Volk und Staat fallen auseinander in Europa
Demokratisches Rechtsempfinden – d.h. die aus dem Grundsatz der Gleichheit sich ergebende Notwendigkeit von Vergeltung und Widervergeltung – steht in Europa gegen kodifiziertes Recht – ein Gegensatz, der so in den USA eher selten vorkommt. Man drehe und wende es, wie man wolle, innerhalb der Regierungspraxis eines europäischen Staates ist das technisch umgesetzte Recht keineswegs ein „gleiches Recht für alle“.
Das wäre bestenfalls noch hinzunehmen, wenn wenigstens der Geltungsgrund des Rechts noch in der theologischen Voraussetzung der Demokratie, die geschichtlich zum Begriff der Volkssouveränität geführt hat, läge. Tatsächlich aber liegt der echte, nicht der fiktive Geltungsgrund des Rechts in Sacherfordernissen begründet, die sämtlich auf das einfache, voraussetzungslose Faktum, nicht aber auf das Juridicum, von Regierung hinweisen. Lincolns berühmte Formel „Demokratie ist die Regierung des Volkes durch das Volk und für das Volk“ wird in Europa nicht einmal ansatzweise erfüllt. Das liegt nicht etwas daran, weil Lincolns Volksbegriff problematisch wäre – das ist er beileibe nicht –, sondern weil die Demokratie in Europa recht frühzeitig in die Hände von eigenständigen Priesterkollegien („Ideokratie“: Juristen und Intellektuelle) gelangt ist, die die effektive Machtausübung an eine aus Berufspolitikern, Bürokraten und bestimmten Journalisten bestehende Dienerschaft delegieren.
Die Herrschaft der Juristen
Zuweilen machen sich diese Diener gegenüber ihren Herren selbständig, doch wollen sie im Sattel bleiben, müssen sie immer wieder auf sie zurückkommen. Der alte Gerechtigkeitsgrundsatz, der auch in der amerikanischen Demokratie weitgehend verwirklicht ist, dass Recht und Staat schlechthin für auf sie passende Menschen da sind, liegt in Europa offensichtlich außer kraft, ohne dass darum gefährliche Konsequenzen für die Stabilität der Staaten zu befürchten wären. Ihre Stabilität gibt ihr nämlich nicht das „Volk“ – weswegen das „Volk“ gut Nebensache sein kann – sondern sie kommt von ebenbesagten Kollegien und Dienerschaften her. Praktisch umgesetzt wäre die demokratische Forderung eines „gleichen Rechts für alle“ damit eine Gegensetzung zu gültigem Recht. Gerechtigkeit – darunter wird in der Demokratie immer nur verstanden der Grundsatz der Gleichheit – und Recht fallen auseinander in Europa.
In der Wirklichkeit ergeben sich rechtliche Normierungen nur aus faktischer Machthabe. Die Probe aufs Exempel machen dabei die Juristen selbst: Wenn sie auch nicht selbst am Ruder sitzen, ist es doch mehr als nur ausreichend für sie, dem faktischen Machthaber unentbehrlich zu sein. Und so sehen wir sie überall in der neueren Staatengeschichte: mal vor, mal neben, mal hinter dem jeweiligen Machthaber, der noch dazu ein x-Beliebiger sein kann, nur in den allerseltensten Fällen, und auch dann nur zufällig, mit ihm selbst identisch.
Anarchistische Intellektuelle finden die Ideokratie erträglich
Heinrich Leo zufolge ist jede Ideokratie nur an der Erhaltung ihres Systems, nicht aber an der Befolgung ethischer Normen – und dazu gehört trotz seiner Sonderbarkeit auch der demokratische Grundsatz der Gleichheit – interessiert. Zur Ideokratie gehört immer die Privilegierung eines bestimmten Priesterstands, so Leo. Warum nun gerade radikale Demokraten und Apostel der Gleichheit, wie z.B. der Ideokratie fern, dahingegen dem Anarchismus nahe stehende Intellektuelle, sich trotzdem für unsere europäischen Demokratien, die allesamt solche von Leo dargestellten Ideokratien sind, erwärmen, ist schnell gesagt: der Wille zur Macht vermag hier eben mehr auszurichten als die herkömmliche Logik oder einfach nur Redlichkeit.
Auch sind die meisten Intellektuellen, die von der einen grenzenlosen Menschheit träumen und schon von Berufs wegen für Gleichheit schwärmen, selbst privilegierte Nutznießer verschiedenster Rahmen, von denen sie in ihren unrealisierbaren Sozialutopien geflissentlich abgesehen haben: akademischer Rahmen, staatlicher Rahmen, nationaler Rahmen, westlicher Kulturkreis – auch ein Rahmen, wenn auch ein runder –, ja, sogar der von den meisten verteufelte „Kapitalismus“ ist ein solcher Rahmen.
Auch die Tatsache, dass die Ideokratie auf die verschiedenen Rahmen nicht allzu viel Rücksicht nimmt, macht sie, wenn nicht attraktiv, so doch erträglich für radikaldemokratische Gleichheitsapostel. Da wird dann auf einmal die demokratische Moral beiseite gelassen und, im Gegenzug dazu, dem Opportunismus gehuldigt. Der Zweck heiligt die Mittel. Alles Weitere ist durch die gute Absicht gerechtfertigt. Diese Intellektuellenmoral und -logik zeigt sich hier überaus konsequent: der Weg zum (menschlichen) Himmelreich auf Erden ist mit den guten Absichten der Intellektuellen gepflastert. Wer´ s glaubt, wird selig – selig sind aber immer noch die Armen im Geiste.