We thus have defined the axis of the global process.
We have determined that this axis is the mutation of capitalism.
We then determined the principal contradiction within capitalism: the conflict between classical capitalism and mutacapitalism.
We then determined the nature of the unfolding struggle and the place within it of the two non-capitalist forces: the neo-communists (#3) and the neo-fascists (#4).
What is the practical significance of this theoretical model?
Its significance, among other things, is that outside of this model almost everything that occurs in the modern world remains unexplainable and unexplained. It is not understood, for example, why the West has all of a sudden so rapidly lost its affection for all leaders who had been carrying out authoritarian or semi-authoritari
Outside of this model the whole story with Putin, in relation to whom the West has profoundly changed its stance, is not understandable.
Putin’s own position is not understandable. (In fact, I am speaking here not even so much about an articulated political position, as much as about a spontaneous position.)
The whole dialectic of the global process is not understandable. If this dialectic is defined by the struggle between capitalist classicism and mutacapitalism, then one may take a stance and take part in this struggle; otherwise, this is impossible.
This being said, it is entirely unnecessary to praise capitalism, classical or otherwise. One can and ought to consider that really overcoming the whole current nightmare is possible only by changing to a non-capitalist neo-communist path. And of course, the Essence of Time movement says just this. But, it is one thing to talk about your idea of good, whereas it is completely different to talk about the real ongoing struggle in the world, in which you must take part in one way or another. And, it is possible to take part in the struggle only after deciding whose side you are on and who you are opposing. And, saying that you are for Russia is not enough. It is, of course, necessary, but this is not sufficient.
What’s needed here is:
To realize that capitalism has split on the inside into mutacapitalism and classical capitalism.
That the struggle is in fact taking place between two forces, which had previously been one whole, and
C) To firmly define which of these forces is the greater, or even perhaps absolute evil.
We firmly maintain that the greater evil is mutacapitalism, and that it is absolute evil.
Because of this, classical capitalism can then not be the same kind of evil for us. It then means that it is the lesser evil. In fact, this lesser evil is fighting absolute evil. One can criticize this lesser evil to whatever extent necessary, and we do criticize it. One can call capitalist classicism a historical dead end and state that mutacapitalism will inevitably devour it. But, one cannot help but see that a most intense confrontation is unfolding. And in opposing mutacapitalism, we begin to build a certain de facto relationship with capitalist classicism. This relationship, I reiterate, does not demand that we dissolve ourselves in capitalist classicism; it does not demand of us a refusal to criticize capitalism. It is a situational alliance of two forces.
Do we have the right to say that force #3 in the modern world is communism, which appears to have utterly failed? Yes, we have this right if at the same time, we speak of a profound renewal of communism. It is in fact this that we are talking about while discussing the project of Supramodernity, while discussing the recognition of and the atonement for the mistakes of the past, while discussing the real content of Marxism, and its future.
Neo-communism, which asserts the necessity of turning the page on the capitalist stage of humanity’s existence and which tragically purges all of what caused the failure of Soviet communism, thus placing humanity in a very complicated situation, is alive. It is a real force outside of mutacapitalism and capitalist classicism.
Neo-fascism is just as real of a force.
Speaking of these four forces (#1 – mutacapitalism, #2 – classicism, #3 – neocommunism, and #4 pre-capitalist fundamentalism of the pseudo-religious and neo-fascist varieties), we are discussing not phantoms, but the reality of our era. Alliances between these forces are also a reality.
The alliance between force #1 and force #4 has already been unfolding for a very long time. It served as the basis of all that happened in Italy, Greece, Turkey, Chile, Afghanistan… And so on, and so forth. It presented itself with shocking egregiousness in the course of the so-called Arab Spring. Precisely this has taken place in Ukraine. Precisely this is what we are fighting against.
As for the alliance between force #2 and force #3, it has been spontaneously taking form from the moment that force #3 came out of its stupor, first theoretically, and then politically. As a matter of fact, this turned out to be directly related to Essence of Time and its activities. Many understand this, both in Russia and abroad.
Having come out of theoretical stupor, Essence of Time organized the rally on Poklonnaya Hill [a rally of patriotic Russian groups in Moscow on February 4, 2012 which played a major role in thwarting an attempted Arab Spring-like pro-globalist coup] specifically as an alliance of forces #2 and #3, which I announced at the very start of the rally. The theoretical meaning of this practical event have yet to be fully comprehended. This work is a step on the path of that comprehension.
Essence of Time then battled mutacapitalists of different kinds in defending family and other traditional values (again, alongside classicists).
Finally, Essence of Time is fighting in Donbass, again using the same framework.
It is easy to notice that specifically the existence of such a framework evokes an especially vehement anger from the enemy, who had long before constructed an alliance betweeen forces #1 and #4, and who has absolutely no desire to see a consolidated alliance of forces #2 and #3. An alliance of neo-communists, who reject blind retro worship as well as postmodernist “leftism”, and conservatives who reject the temptations of fascism and neo-fascism.
The absence of such an alliance would mean the almost inevitable victory of the alliance between forces #1 and #4 with all if the resulting consequences. I again wish to stress that I am not pulling some new theoretical scheme out of thin air; instead, I am making sense of a strange reality, the existence of which everyone recognizes, yet no one really comprehends. These are not my abstract fantasies, but rather the very real US leadership continues to perseverate that “the main evil of today is national capitalism” (or classicism in my terminology).
Who is saying this? Of course, they are mutacapitalists who find themselves to be hindered by classicism. If this is not recognized, then the whole American war against Hussein, Mubarak, Qaddafi, Assad, and many others is just one big misunderstanding
This is no misunderstanding
It is high time for neo-communists, for the proponents of a profound renewal of the ideas of a new humanism, to ponder this and to understand where exactly is their place along this frontline. Nobody is suggesting for them to dissolve themselves in the quasi-Assad, quasi-Mubarak, or some other variant of capitalistic Modernity. But, when you are actually fighting, and not just pontificating from the quiet of the office, the struggle itself delineates one situation or another. And, it has no right to arrange itself on the basis of elementary political reflexes supplemented by theories blindly borrowed from the past.
And now about Russia. It isn’t me, but rather the real political leaders of the real United States who time and again have drawn parallels between Putin and all of the Arab and non-Arab leaders whom their force #1 has attacked for trying to save the capitalist nation-state Modernity in their countries.
Indeed, the Americans consider Putin to be much more dangerous than those previously listed. This is because he is maneuvering in a sufficiently flexible manner in his role as the leader of a state with a massive amount of nuclear weapons, a sufficiently powerful military, and very extensive raw material resources.
I wish to additionally direct attention to the fact that the Americans consistently make the same accusations towards all representatives of force #2, beginning with corruption and ending with “human rights abuses”. However, the Americans never direct these accusations towards representatives of force #4. They also approach their own egregious offenses in these fields with great patience.
Additionally, with regards to future strategy, it is necessary to articulate what has to do with how we relate to irregular political behavior in its various forms. Starting with revolutions and ending with political assassinations. Without articulating this, we are unable to formulate a well-defined model of political behavior that would be appropriate for the realities of today.
The fact of the matter is that the revolutionary classics base themselves on tearing down the existing order. From the rubble of this order (the capitalist order, for example) a new virtuous reality would then form itself.
The apologists of these classics insist that this kind of activity is absolutely necessary, citing Lenin and the Bolsheviks as authorities. They forget that Lenin and the Bolsheviks were faced with a reality that was already reduced to rubble; and before it was reduced to rubble, Lenin was very much ready for an in-depth dialogue with bourgeois-democr
However, before this dialogue could take place to even the slightest extent, these very bourgeois-democr
They also forget that by 1917, the imperialist camp, or force #1 of that time, was absolutely fragmented and absolutely discredited by the horrors of World War I. And, there was no way it could join forces to rapidly crush the Russian Bolshevist revolution.
The circumstances of today are such that the collapse of the existing Russian reality for even a few days would mean an immediate intervention by the consolidated forces of the West and the occupation of Russia. After this, any talk of building a “new virtuous reality” in place of “Putin’s disgusting capitalism” will become absolutely meaningless. This is because the only project to then be built will be called a “dismembered occupation zone located on the territory of the former Russian state”.
Russia’s stability cannot be violated in this situation. Neither Lenin nor Stalin would have violated this stability if they had found themselves in this situation.
But, a protectionist stance is also unacceptable, for two reasons.
First of all, a dignified dialogue between forces #2 and #3 has nothing to do with dissolution of force #3 into force #2. Nobody needs this dissolution, and it is profoundly counterproductiv
Secondly, the very nature of the current Russian force #2 is extremely peculiar. For the time being, it is very difficult to say that this force, which has spontaneously taken up the position of just about the principal opponent of force #1, has in any way taken form as such. This is in light of the fact that in previous times this force founded a substantial part of its decision-making on the premise that it must find a place in the project that force #1 is implementing, that it must support this project or even become its satellite. This backstory, which had taken place over a very long period of time, distorts everything to a very substantial degree. It interferes with organizing the battle against force #1, and it makes the alliance with force #3 problematic, among other things.
Essentially, this nature is the fundamental problem in our domestic politics today. This problem must be discussed with the utmost thoroughness.
(To be continued…)
Source (for copy): http://eu.eot.su/?p=9756
This is the translation of the third part of the first article (published in “Essence of Time” newspaper issue 117 on March 5, 2015) by Sergey Kurginyan on the new ongoing mutation of capitalism. Capitalism is destroying nation states in favor of a global state; it is destroying the family as an institution, and it is reformatting itself into something entirely anti-humanistic. In doing so, the new mutated capitalism, with its twin brothers, neofascism and radical Islamism, inevitably clashes with classic capitalism. Whose side should Communists be on in this battle? You will find the answer in this series of articles.