Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

How to Defeat Communism and Fascism World-Wide and Once and For All and Rediscover a True Free-Market Economy via a Proper Understanding of Hegel

Expand Messages
  • Philip Bralich Ph.D.
    How to Defeat Communism and Fascism World-Wide and Once and For All and Rediscover a True Free-Market Economy via a Proper Understanding of Hegel   The term
    Message 1 of 1 , Apr 29, 2012
    • 0 Attachment
      How to Defeat Communism and Fascism World-Wide and Once and For All and Rediscover a True Free-Market Economy via a Proper Understanding of Hegel
       
      The term “Capital” and the follow-on, “capitalism” and “communism” were coined by Marx to express his erroneous understanding of Hegel.  In particular, he took a particularly rigid scientific point of view of and accounted for the sense of alienation that comes from industrialization, modern science, and a growing society of workers (rather than farmers and serfs) with the view that in the modern view all of one’s efforts can be seen as “labor.”  The soulless, spiritless, scientific automaton called man seeks to maintain and provide for himself via 5-senses efforts in the five-senses new-world of modern science.  As oneself as laborer and one’s goods and services as the output of labor become a commodity, the individual feels alienated from himself and his goods and services and is prey to those who would “take charge” of, own, and monopolize capital, the externalized, alienated laborer and his goods and services.  (One can
      often recognize this sense of alienation as a desperate need to cling at and manipulate a very unscientific, psychological model of oneself and ones world at the chest of oneself and others and a desperate battle of trying to dig at and be in charge of one’s own and others capital in that model.) 
       
      Political and philosophical writers of Marx’s time all recognized and discussed this sense of alienation but, unlike Marx, Hegel saw a philosophical solution to it.  Marx, however, saw it as inevitable and requiring a political response rather than a philosophical one.  His response was a collectivist one where the laborers as a group could wrest their capital back from the capitalists via an immediate and violent revolution and redistribute the wealth equally.  “Capitalist” was meant to refer to all of monarchs, aristocrats, and industrialists and the terms capitalism and communism were meant to be taken as a novel insight into the reality of man’s condition recognized as a soulless, spiritless, scientific automaton and as the source of a solution, a collectivist one, that would revolutionize politics and economics. 
       
      Hegel, however, was able to offer a logical (philosophical or psychological) solution through a recognition of both the sense of alienation and its alternation with personal growth (“becoming”).  As long as one is focused on self-development (for Hegel, through logic), the sense of alienation will alternate with a sense of a return to self.  The closer one gets to an understanding of “absolute spirit” (Godhead, enlightenment, salvation, sainthood, Unus Mundus, etc.) the closer that alternation comes to being an immediate mediation between alienation and becoming.  As a bi-product of this, those who are truly productive and improving their skills will not feel or fear the alienation, while those who are unproductive, lazy and regressive will turn all their efforts toward addressing the alienation in the politics and economy rather than in one’s own psychology. 
       
      A Free Market economy has nothing to do with either Capitalism (the centralization of wealth in owners, industrialists, aristocrats or monarchs)  or Communism (the equal distribution of wealth independent of considerations of individual contribution)  because it is rooted in recognizing the individual’s contribution in offering himself as laborer and his labor or goods to the market as well as receiving  its return from alienation in growth or “becoming” or financial compensation as his payment.  A free market does not seek to manipulate or control just one side of the market,  the sense of alienation but both sides: the alienated laborer, goods, and services as well as the development of the individual and his skills, which fosters the return from alienation, fair compensation, the development of the worker, and economy based on individual self development and production rather than one based on collectivism.  The individual is like a
      numerator which defines and determines the fraction, while collectivism is the denominator, the term under discussion.  A collectivist society always regresses to primitivity as it requires and ever-growing lowest common denominator to maintain itself.  As seen with every communist country in the world this constant lowering of the bar is a slow, painful, and inevitable regression into primitivity.  Two of the clearest examples of this are North Korea and Cuba, who simply cannot lift themselves out poverty as they cannot respect individual effort or contribution.  Worse, they also have a tendency to take credit for individual and novel effort, claiming that the collectivists, who by definition cannot innovate are the true innovators and the individual some kind of a thief.  This is why the gulags are filled with poets and inventors, the true creatives. 
       
      A good way to see the difference between a free market economy and a Marxist one is to look at the entertainment industry, where (for the most part anyway), the talent, skills, and experience of the individual drives the profits not the manipulation of laborers and their output.  The more the capitalists drive the industry the greater the failure.  Marxism for both capitalists and communists is contrary to individualism and contrary to talent, skills, and experience.  This is how we know that those at the top of a Marxist food chain are master manipulators of others output not contributors of any sort; they are like Lucifers who takes credit for and the profits from the Creators.
       
      n.b.  There are no great Marxist or Maoist or collectivist films – talent is individual and not collective.  Without the talent there are no profits.  Marxism mitigates against individualism and thereby mitigates against success. 
       
      Marx also did not understand democracy or the vote.  Even in the impossible event that Marx were correct, ensuring, supporting, and developing the vote could achieve all his economic goals.  However, this would be impossible in his eyes because the vote guarantees individual effort at the expense of the collective, the lowest common denominator.
       
      Capitalism in America is a failed free market because like all Marxism it is based on the alienation of oneself as a worker and of ones products and services and the everyman for himself money grubbing grab for that alienated wealth is all the results.  The collectivist cultures seek to redress the problem from the side of “the people” while the individualist side of the problem seeks to redress the problem through the money grab for capital.  Respect for a genuine evalution of the contribution of the individual is lost in the demeaning of ones work into every lowering minimum wage and a lauding of the most successful and most unaccountable money grubbers.
       
      Maoism wallows in the same error as Marx but uses a different kind of revolution to rectify the problem.  The Maoist revolution, rather than being overt, direct, and immediate is a prolonged, covert, “guerilla” revolution where the peasants, with or without guns, wherever they may be or whatever they may doing are constantly taking “one more step” into the wealth and the confidence of the nobles, the holders of the capital.  This has morphed into a system where anyone who is not of the collective, “the Borg” if you will, is a threat, a noble, and selfish miscreant and all of the peasants will see them as targets to be “stepped into” and absorbed with a cocked back head, a stupid toothy grin, and a shilling lie for the infidel.  Metaphorically, Marxist revolutions can be seen as Marxist or as locusts devouring the “capital” of centuries of civilization (e.g. Independence Day, the movie), while Maoist revolution can be seen as
      cockroaches moving in to devour the goods of those who have understood and can participate in centuries of civilization (e.g. Zombieland). 
       
      Let’s hope Marx’s misunderstanding was not an expeditious one meant to leave the card holding leaders of the movement with “the goods” of the immediate mediation of becoming and alienation  while leaving the masses AND the industrialists with the alienation and that never ending battle. 
       
      Both sides of Marxist, the capitalists and the communists, must continually foster that sense of alienation through heightening on the dependence on the collective and the “inevitable, sad-but-gtrue truth of the alienation, man as spiritless, soulless automaton. 
       
      There may be a tongue in cheek “secret” recognition of what Hegel actually meant that is shared among the leaders i.e. the alternation of alienation and personal growth.  In getting the masses to focus on the alienation and to toss out there interest in personal growth, substituting it for dependence on their revolutionary leaders, they are totally lost in that alienation, the wealth goes to the communist leaders and the masses are left with toothy grins, bobbing heads, and a shiney new bell for his bicycle no matter what his efforts may be.  He will also think, like a redneck buying scrathers, that confidence in his alienation will any day now turn into massive wealth.  The masses further throw up their arms, surrender to their leaders even surrender their souls to their leaders the more the masses also give up on the sense that personal, individual growth is anything but selfishness.
       
      A true democracy and a vote destroys the collective, builds the free market and the individual, and fosters the return from alienation that neither capitalists nor communists can tolerate.
       
      A true solution to both sides of the Marxist dynamic is a bill to tax the rich.  The voter can and has a responsibility to redress the distribution of wealth via an assertion of individual growth as a vote to tax the rich.  Because the Marxists in America (those on the capitalist side) have gotten in so deeply, it is crucial to tax them hard, fast, repeatedly, and punitively until the capitalists understand the individual and the free market, not the manipulation of the alienation of the automaton is the authority in the county.   
       
      The voter must tax them thoroughly, profoundly, and repeatedly until they sit up straight, fold their hands on the table, admit they were wrong, apologize, and PUT THE MONEY BACK!  And they need to be taxed again and again and again until the history books read that the Marxists, the capitalists, succumbed and made restitution.   And further tax then again and again and again until the voter always has a tax the rich bill at the ready should the Marxists once again raise their heads and their gooky, digging hands to attack, gouge and violate the individual. 
       
      This effort would also be a true peace movement as it would take war out of the hands of the wealthy and place it in the control of military strategy, politicians, and the voter.
       
      Sincerely,
       
      Philip A. Bralich, Ph.D.
      Give me liberty or give me debt:  It is easier this go around. 
       
      The full set of tax the rich emails is now available for Kindle. 
       
       
      ($3.99)
      http://www.amazon.com/dp/B007V59IVE

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.