Opposing BJP (Hindu) Fascism

MarxPortrait-02

BJP calls hartal in Kerala village to shut down beef stalls, CPI (M) holds parallel beef fest

Marx states (in Capital I) that prior to the rise of Industrialised (capitalist) farming, the British diet was mostly grains and fruit, with only the rich eating meat. Farmers massed produced meat simply because it generated more profit. There is a strong presence amongst Labour and Communist voters (in the UK) of those who voluntarily assume a meatless diet as a means to bring down industrialised farming (which is cruel and inefficient), and this ‘Communist’ endeavour should not be conflated with the pursuance of the fascist ideology (and extreme theological interpretation) of the rightwing Hindu BJP – which must be criticised and exposed wherever it arises. Although BJP members do not eat beef (and wrongly enforce this on others), the reality is that they still eat other forms of meat, and by and large support industrialised (capitalist) farming. However, it must also be said that the policy of the Communist Party of India (Marxist) also supports the capitalist meat industry, how is this ‘Revolutionary’? On the one-hand, the CPI (M) is fighting religious extremism and the notion of an ‘enforced’ diet, by providing the very beef that is disallowed by the BJP, on the other-hand, the industrialised farming and slaughtering of cows is encouraged. It is an interesting dialectical situation peculiar to Indian socio-economic conditions. The BJP should not be allowed to hijack the vegetarian agenda through its fascist agenda, and the CPI (M) should consider a blanket vegetarian (vegan) response to the situation, and pull the economic rug from under industrialised (capitalist) farming industry – which I am sure provides ample profit to the BJP government.

Pol Pot’s Explanation of Events

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Pol Pot & Khmer Rouge Delegation – Beijing (c. 1975)

For the intimate expressions of Pol Pot, I have accessed a number of Chinese language source articles (referencing two below). I have taken this path because Pol Pot was a close ally of Mao Zedong, and according to the memories of Chinese people, Pol Pot was a very charming and likeable person. This is an interesting assessment from a Chinese culture that even within its Communist manifestation, puts much emphasis upon good behaviour and conformity to social and cultural norms that secure a peaceful and stable society. In the West, which has perpetuated the myth that Karl Marx’s ‘Scientific Socialism’ is exactly the same as Adolf Hitler’s ‘National Socialism’, the matter of Pol Pot is cut and dried – Pol Pot is simply (and unquestioningly) presented as a genocidal murderer. The problem is a lack of objective evidence for his apparent crimes, and a reliance upon an unsubstantiated Western Cold War rhetoric, that is as much motivated by anti-Asian racism, as it is by anti-Socialist ideology. Even though the Soviet Union supported Vietnam in its invasion and annexing of Cambodia in 1978 (establishing the Soviet controlled ‘People’s Republic of Kampuchea’ to replace the ousted Khmer Rouge), Russian encyclopaedia sources dealing with this matter, state that the figure of between 1 to 3 million people killed by the Pol Pot regime is ‘theoretical’, as it has never been proven in a court of law.

Chinese sources also question this figure, pointing-out that it arises only within anti-Socialist Western sources, that have in the past routinely accused Socialist and Communist sources of committing all kinds of false, imagined and fabricated acts (similar to those actually committed by Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime). In this regard, the ‘killing fields’ of Pol Pot resemble the Concentration Camps of Nazi Germany, but the numbers simply do not add-up. Today, the official figure for the Cambodian population stands at about 16 million, but in the 1960’s and 1970’s, it is believed to have been around 9 million. Many Chinese scholars point-out that Pol Pot and his Khmer Rouge were extremely popular amongst the Cambodian people, who flocked to support his call for Revolution. The logical question is how could a population that by and large supported Pol Pot also ‘massacre’ itself in such large numbers, in a short space of time, lacking the technological know-how and advanced industrial capability possessed by the Nazi Germans? The Western rhetoric suggests that between 1/9th and 1/3rd of the population was ‘killed by itself’. When confronted with the illogicality of this situation, those that support this theory state that its accomplishment just goes to ‘prove’ what a maniac Pol Pot was, not realising that in reality just one man is being accused of being so well organised and efficient at political and practical leadership (whilst apparently being ‘mad’), that he achieved all this through an act of mass hypnosis. Whatever the case, the current Western narrative suggests that the Cambodian population of 9 million was either reduced to 6 million or 8 million between 1975 and 1979 – and yet by 2017 – that very same Cambodian population had risen by either 10 million or or 8 million (to 16 million) in just 38 years!

The Khmer Rouge wore ‘black’ uniforms together with a chequered neck-scarf to wipe-away sweat, and because of this they were often referred to as the ‘Black Guards’. Following Pol Pot’s ascending to power on April 17th, 1975, every citizen of Cambodia was required to dispose of the ‘bourgeois’ clothing that had penetrated the cities and towns, and revert to what was thought to be a more traditional form of ethnic Khmer peasant clothing. When asked why he emptied the cities, Pol Pot stated that the US had already been bombing areas of Eastern Cambodia, and that he (and the Khmer Leadership) were apprehensive that the US would launch a vast and sustained bombing campaign upon Cambodian cities and towns – much like the years’s of US destruction wrought upon North Vietnam. The Khmer Rouge also feared a US ground invasion, and their answer to these problems was to mobilise the entire Cambodian population within the relative safety of the countryside, living in communes of single-sex barracks, training in the day to farm the land, and prepare for a ‘People’s War’. When asked in the late 1970’s, and again by an American journalist just prior to his death (in 1998) why there was evidence of mass graves found in certain areas of Cambodia, Pol Pot gave exactly the same answer. Pol Pot’s answer is written in the Chinese language as ‘敌特破坏’ – which translates as the ‘enemy spies were destroyed’. In other words, Pol Pot ordered these killings to be carried-out by the Khmer Rouge, as a means to destroy what he perceived to be ‘enemies of the people’ operating within Cambodia. Of course, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that the invading Vietnamese forces, and US-backed insurgency forces could have been responsible for at least some of these deaths. There is also a suggestion that Pol Pot’s policies have been skewed and misrepresented over the years. When asked about his policy of ‘eradicating’ the city-dwellers, Pol Pot replied that he had meant it was the principle of bourgeois (Westernised) living that was to be eradicated – and not necessarily the people who had been subject to this kind of pollution (although this position does seem to contradict the known dictates of the Khmer Rouge once in power). This information does not excuse the terrible crimes that apparently occurred in Cambodia under Pol Pot, but it does provide a more complete picture when viewed alongside the more commonly known facts in this case. My research is ongoing.

Chinese language References:

https://www.laonanren.com/news/2016-08/122729.htm

http://baike.baidu.com/item/波尔布特

 

 

 

Modern Fascism: Beware the National Bolshevist Party (of Russia)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

National Bolshevist Flag (Mimicking the German Swastika)

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Swastika: National Socialism

In his ramblings recorded in ‘Mien Kampf’, Adolf Hitler made it clear that the number one enemy of the Third Reich was the Scientific Socialism developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, more commonly referred to as ‘Communism’. As the father of Karl Marx had been a Jew before converting to Christianity (and marrying a non-Jew), Hitler was of the opinion that ‘Marxism’ was a Jewish plot to secure world domination. Hitler thought that the Jewish race might gain popularity around the world by ‘sharing’ their wealth with everyone and thereby creating a Socialist World State (despite the fact that Karl Marx never considered himself a Jew, and Friedrich Engels was a non-Jewish Prussian aristocrat). Paradoxically, Hitler also subscribed to the contradictory idea that all Jews were money-grabbing parasites that sought to control society through predatory capitalism. Hitler could entertain this two diametrically opposed ideologies because he was quite insane. Within the work of Marx, fascism is a ruthless ideology that is created by capitalism whilst in a state of decay. Fascism is the opposite to Communism, and is viewed as all the vicious elements of capitalist greed condensed into a single and deadly political system. When Hitler invaded the USSR in 1941, a fight to the finish was initiated between these two ideologies that led to around 40 million Soviets losing their lives before Nazism was finally crushed in early 1945 (in Berlin). Although the USSR was an ally of the West during WWII, following 1945, the USA developed a false Cold War strategy that misrepresented the USSR (and its Communist ideology) as nothing more than just another a form of German Nazism. From that time onwards, many commentators in the West bizarrely (and illogically) compared Stalin with Hitler, and routinely demeaned the Soviet contribution and sacrifice in the defeat of International Fascism. The political rightwing likes to endorse this thinking, and takes it one step further by stating that the USSR was far worse than Nazi Germany, and that it was the USSR that perpetuated the holocaust, etc. Following the collapse of the USSR in 1991, and the violent suppression of its supporters in 1993, the capitalist West demanded that all manner of political rightwing ideologies be imported into the Russian hinterland. This included the Cold War ‘false flag’ idea that Soviet Communism (i.e. ‘Bolshevism’) was identical with German Nazism. As a counter to Communist ideology, Russian racist nationalism was encouraged amongst the younger generation, and many White supremacist movements developed (particularly centred around martial arts clubs and anti-migrant violence). Out of this mess developed the ‘National Bolshevik Party’ (NBP), a movement that accepted the lie that Soviet Communism was identical with German Nazism, and which adopted a modified Hitlerite swastika as its flag. The NBP has a flag has a central white circle superimposed on a red rectangular background, and within the white circle there is a black hammer and sickle emblem (which replaces the black swastika proper). The NBP is NOT Communist or Socialist in a Marxist-Leninist sense, and should not be mistaken as such. The NBP is a racist organisation that encourages White Russian nationalism, and advocates total war to achieve its political ends of racial purity and world domination.

Mindless ‘Bourgeois’ Terrorism is Against Socialism

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘The weapon of criticism cannot, of course, replace criticism of the weapon, material force must be overthrown by material force; but theory also becomes a material force as soon as it has gripped the masses. Theory is capable of gripping the masses as soon as it demonstrates ad hominem, and it demonstrates ad hominem as soon as it becomes radical. To be radical is to grasp the root of the matter. But, for man, the root is man himself.’

Marx, Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right. Introduction (1843)

Karl Marx was opposed to the judicial Death Sentence, and warned against pointless acts of desperate terrorism against the State, its assets, or those that serve it. On the other hand, Marx clearly stated that the Working Class had a right to defend itself from external aggression. The impression left is that ‘cliches’ of terrorists are pursuing a counter-productive (bourgeois) course of action that does nothing in its limited scope, to collectively ‘free’ the working class from the yoke of capitalist oppression. Indeed, such action inflicts mindless death upon individuals, and the damage and destruction of property, facilities and resources. Generally speaking, the State responds by limiting the ‘freedoms’ of its own citizens under the guise of ‘preventing’ further terrorist attacks. Therefore, the bourgeois habit of ‘separatist’ of terrorist groups attacking specific symbolic targets, ultimately brings a greater oppression upon the Working Class, particularly if those groups represent religion, nationalism, or limited special interest groups. Of course, things are different during times of open warfare, as with the circumstances of WWI that led directly to the Russian October Revolution of 1917, the founding of North Korea at the end of WWII, or the subsequent founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 (following the defeat of the ‘Nationalist’ Chiang Kai-Shek). Furthermore, the Soviet Union engaged in legitimate ‘self-defence’ activity during the Great Patriotic War (1941-45) and in the process defeated German Nazism. During the Cold War, the countries of the Communist Bloc defended their best ‘class’ interests against Western ‘capitalist’ aggression. In the West today, it is terrorist groups motivated by a vision of distorted religion, and fascism that are carrying-out their attacks on innocent civilians. This is still the case, even if they state that they are ‘retaliating’ for the hundreds of thousands of civilian deaths caused by US and NATO military action in the Middle East since 1991. Although it is true that the forces of capitalism (which includes Zionist Israel and its persecution of the Palestinians), do routinely deploy immense weapons of mass destruction, and often use those weapons motivated through a racist disregard for its victims, bourgeois acts of isolated terrorism does absolutely ‘nothing’ for the well-being of the Working Class, does not bring its freedom any closer, and often makes life considerably harder for those that toil for a living. As matters currently stand in the affluent West, it is more productive to pursue a path of legitimate progressive education, join a ‘legal’ leftwing Revolutionary political party (such as the ‘Communist Party’), and work to peacefully convert the forces of capitalist oppression over to the Socialist cause. Do not harm or kill the servants of the current bourgeois system, but treat them with respect and ‘convince’ them through reasoned argument that the establishment of Scientific Socialism in the UK through the democratic system, is in their best interests.

The Sangha Kommune (僧伽公社) Defined

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Ch’an Master Caotang siad:

There is nothing special to leadership – essentially it is a matter of controlling the evils of biased information and autocracy. Do not just go by whatever is said to you first – then the obsequities of petty people seeking favour will not be able to confuse you.

After all, the feelings of a group of people are not one, and objective reason is hard to see. You should investigate something to see its benefit or harm, examine whether it is appropriate and suitable or not; then after that you may carry it out.

True Record of Sushan (Song Dynasty)

The Chinese Buddhist monastic community is referred to as a ‘Sangha’ (Sanskrit for ‘spiritual community’), whereby men and women form a voluntary association premised upon following a strict set of rules known as the ‘Vinaya Discipline’. Within this community, there is ‘equality’ between all members, with the leaders being those who have followed these rules for the longest times. This is because such people are thought to have more experience at adhering to the Vinaya Discipline (which includes celibacy and vegetarianism), and are therefore able to effectively advise all others through the difficult times they my face in their practice. As those with little experience have less to share, they are not considered leaders whilst more experienced practitioners live in the vicinity. Of course, this is a relative matter depending upon the size of population of a community, and the length of time it has existed, and the quality of the masters (male or female) that have led it. Those who cannot keep the Vinaya Discipline (of over 200 rules) generally choose to leave on their own accord, with those who confess breaking the major rules being asked to leave and expelled from the monastic community (due to the bad example they set). However, the term ‘Sangha’ is often more loosely applied to the devout or dedicated lay community, the members of which follow at least 5, 8 or 10 vows as a life routine, and who regularly visit the local temple and volunteer their time in worthwhile social or charitable activities. In this manner, the monastic Sangha teach and guide the lay Sangha, and the lay Sangha applies the Buddha’s teachings of compassion, loving kindness and wise action to the outside the temple, and thereby expand the Buddha-Dharma beyond the temple. As the Buddha originally taught that there is no ‘difference’ in enlightened essence between the monastic and lay community, the monastics do not consider themselves ‘superior’ and the lay community does not consider itself ‘inferior’ to one another. The principle of ‘Sangha, therefore, denotes a sacred space defined and maintained through the principles of psychological and physical self-discipline and learning, premised upon a general attitude of mutual respect. The Sangha, in both essence and function, is a model for a ‘commune’ operating through the vigorous principles of  equality’, ‘discipline’ and ‘wisdom’. These are the principles embodied within this blog – regardless of the scope of its subject matter.

994627_1

The term ‘Kommune’ is taken from the German word for ‘Commune’, and is directly related to the principles of Scientific Socialism, as formulated by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. Indeed, within German language editions of the works of Marx and Engels, the term ‘Kommune’ is often encountered. This type of ‘Kommune’ is also a voluntary association, albeit distinctly ‘modern’ in origination, and designed to serve the Revolutionary needs of the Proletariat – or the mass of peasants forced to work in the industrialised factories produced by the oppressive capitalist system. Working 12 to 16 hours a day, strictly by the clock, whilst being dictated to by brutal managers and the movement and operation of monotonous machines, these peasants were transformed into self-disciplined and highly exploited automatons of industry, waiting for the right historical epoch to free themselves from their endless toil for little reward. Just as the collective mind is ‘dulled’ by endless hours of repetitive toil, it is ‘freed’, ‘activated’ and ‘expanded’ when encountering the strictures of Scientific Socialism, and a non-resisting ‘false consciousness’ is replace by a resisting ‘true consciousness’. Generally, when the mind is freed from the straitjacket of oppression, the body soon follows, even though it is equally true that if the body is freed by a Revolution caused by others, then the mind soon follows! In these post-modem times, proletariat ‘true consciousness’ is much more amorphous in manifestation, particularly as factory work becomes ever less prevalent in the West. Although the modes of capitalist exploitation change with the epoch, the nature of capitalist exploitation (and class distinction) remains exactly the same. Striving for the establishment of a ‘Kommunistic’ society remains the duty of all right-minded working class people across the globe, with the Marxist principle of ‘Internationalism’ replacing nationalism and racism, etc. The point is that the ‘true consciousness’ of the working class is premised entirely upon non-hatred for one another, as this hatred has been imported into the working class by the very capitalists that exploit them! By rejecting capitalism, the working class is rejecting the greed, hatred and delusion that underlies all capitalist thought and action. This working class mission is no less ‘sacred’ than its Buddhist counter-part, and shares exactly the same essence. The author of this blog strives to agitate for the peaceful achievement of both inner and outer Revolution amongst by any means necessary (to quote Malcolm X).

0o0o

Having defined two interpretations of ‘Kommune’, it is important to also emphasis the pivotal notion of ‘education’ and the training of the human mind to discern a relevant ‘truth’ in any given situation or circumstance. Learning in a classroom, through a book, encounter groups, political meetings, protest marches, meditation sessions, or the internet, are all crucial aspects of ‘refining’ the memory and ‘honing’ the intellect. The thought processes (and emotionality) must be ‘calmed’ for the sake of ‘wise’ action and non-action when young, so that avoidable errors and mistakes are reduced to the minimum, and progressive activity increased to the maximum (to selflessly benefit humanity).  This is not always easy, and the ability to recognise non-efficient thought-patterns and behaviours should also be cultivated as a means toward achieving self-forgiveness, and the forgiveness of others. The important point is that the mind should be kept in a positive frame of operation, so that the body can be used for various types of ‘enlightened’ political, cultural and social action. The physical body must be clearly (and cleanly) directed by the mind (the seat of volition), and kept physically fit through appropriate activities. This psycho-physical training sets the stage for the refined individual to understand the frequency and quality of inner and outer energy, and immediately understand the best action (if any) to take, or instantly ‘know’ when others are ‘lying’, or presenting ‘untruth’ as ‘truth’. This ability can be further used to generate ‘correct’ work that counters the lies of a society motivated entirely by greed, racism and an indifference to the suffering of humanity and other life forms. Therefore, this ‘Sangha Kommune’ blog is a work in progress that covers a bewildering array of topics, opinions, and research data. By taking a step back away from its content – the general reader will begin to understand the underlying (and motivating) paradigm. This is essentially a ‘Kommunist’ zone where all beings are automatically ‘freed’ at the point of contact. The need for money is already ‘transcended’, and the energy frequency of the Sangha Kommune should be used by all to achieve a state of permanent ‘freedom’ in all circumstances. This is a space of permanent Cyber Kommunism, and ongoing Revolutionary activity in the form of ‘exposing’ and ‘dissolving’ the bourgeois system and its redundant mode of capitalist organisation.

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

Ch’an Wuzu said:

The Ch’an community is a place for the moulding of Sages and ordinary people, and for nurturing and developing potential ability. It is a source of teaching,. Even though many people are living together, gathering in kind, they are guided and made equal. Each has a transmission from the teacher.

Now in many places they do not strive to maintain the standards of the Sages of the past. Biased feelings of like and dislike are many, with people bending others to what they personally think is right. How should later students take an example?

Records of Equanimity (Song Dynasty)

Marx Oration – Highgate Cemetery (19.03.2017) Long Live the Paris Commune!

Key Speaker: Her Excellency Rocio Maneiro

DELIA GIOVANOLA

20170319_140516

Ambassador of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

20170319_141525

‘In present times, as you know, the legacy of Marx is at the core of the Bolivarian Revolution and more specifically in the policies of our Government. Our social programs are inspired by the ideas of Karl Marx, giving priority to the inclusion of poor people into health, education, and housing systems.’

Her Excellency Rocio Maneiro – Marx Oration (2017)

Socialist Venezuela represented an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat to the US national security and foreign policy’

US President Obama (2016)

October, 2017, will be the 100th anniversary of the Great October Revolution in Russia that swept VI Lenin and his Bolshevik Party to power. Today, around 200 people from all social and ethnic backgrounds converged on the entrance to Highgate Cemetery in preparation for the short march to the grave of Karl Marx (who died on March 14th, 1883), marked since 1956 by a monument equal to the historical importance of this extraordinary man. Following the destruction of the Paris Commune in May, 1871, Karl Marx, his family, Friedrich Engels and other Socialists in the UK, attempted to commemorate this event each year on its anniversary, but faced tremendous resistance from the British establishment. However, they continued to work for a regular gathering each year despite this official harassment. When Karl Marx died on March 14th, 1883, it was agreed that as this date was near the founding of the Paris Commune, it would be a good idea to merge the remembering of the life of Karl Marx with that of celebrating, commemorating and lamenting the passing of the Paris Commune – the world’s first attempt at establishing a Scientific Socialist State. Therefore, from 1883 onwards, the ritual of remembering Karl Marx has been intimately associated with the memory of the Paris Commune (which existed between March 18th to May 28th, 1871).

20170319_140350

Her Excellency Rocio Maneiro – the Ambassador of Venezuela – gave a moving speech explaining how her country has been building a Socialist State premised upon Marxist principles, emphasising the eradication of poverty through the empowerment of the ordinary people. This has been achieved through extensive State assistance and support, which has seen an extensive re-distribution of wealth. This has seen a rapid reduction in homelessness (through the providing of good quality housing), and an equally rapid increase in public health through the establishment of a nation-wide medical system. The Venezuelan economy has been re-organised along Socialist lines, and has created employment and opportunities for the ordinary people to live in dignity through possessing a job, and positively contributing toward society. Employment unions are encouraged to ensure good working conditions, and there is an extensive welfare system for those who cannot work, or who are ill or disabled. However, Rocio Maneiro explained that despite all these important accomplishments for humanity, President Obama (of the USA) declared in 2016 that Venezuela represented an ‘unusual and extraordinary threat to the US national security and foreign policy’. Following this statement, the Western Press started calling for military intervention in Venezuela, and the destruction of its Socialist regime. This is how the so-called ‘democratic’ capitalist world responded to the Venezuelan working people taking control of their own destiny. Venezuela continues the struggle against the excesses and injustices generated by the exploitative system of capitalism.

20170319_132924

Liz Payne – the Chair of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB) – spoke powerfully about the historical importance of the establishment of the Paris Commune in 1871, and how it is important for all genuine Socialists and Communists to propagate its memory. Although the Paris Commune ultimately failed, the French people for a time exhibited a true working class consciousness which was attacked and destroyed by the reactionary forces of capitalism. Karl Marx, in his many works, stated that the working class will have many victories – and suffer many defeats, before the final victory of Socialism and the establishment of Communism. The Paris Commune symbolised how working people can take control of their own destinies, and if need be, organise to defend that achievement. The eventual defeat was noble, and set the example of how working class people should proceed. When a white shirt covered in blood was raised on a stick (taken from a dead worker killed by the authority) – the Red Flag of Socialism was born.

20170319_135816

Alaister Beach & Adrian Chan-Wyles

20170319_134001

20170319_134554

Representative of the PRC with Members of the CPB

20170319_134714

20170319_134641

20170319_134759

20170319_134812

20170319_134846

20170319_134905

20170319_140627

20170319_140605

20170319_140712

20170319_140717

20170319_140811

20170319_141211

20170319_142412

Paranormal: Understanding the Inverted Mind

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘The basis of irreligious criticism is: Man makes religion, religion does not make man. Religion is the self-consciousness and self-esteem of man who has either not yet found himself or has already lost himself again. But man is no abstract being encamped outside the world. Man is the world of man, the state, society. This state, this society, produce religion, an inverted world-consciousness, because they are an inverted world. Religion is the general theory of that world, its encyclopaedic compendium, its logic in a popular form, its spiritualistic point d’honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, its universal source of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realisation of the human essence because the human essence has no true reality. The struggle against religion is therefore indirectly a fight against the world of which religion is the spiritual aroma.

(Karl Marx: Abstract – The Introduction to Contribution to the Critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Right)

Religion fulfils the role of providing a sense of profound but otherwise undefined, wonderment for humanity. Following the strictures of Judeo-Christian theology, the religionist view separates the world into the dichotomy of ‘matter’ and ‘spirit’, with spirit being assumed to be the real world, and the material plane presented as the ‘false’ world. The two world are assumed to exist side by side, with the existence of the spiritual world being sustained through the agency of ‘faith’ due to the lack of tangible evidence. The main problem with this model is that the spiritual world of religion is only known and conveyed within the confines of the physical world. This means that religion is only known through that which it is thought to transcend. The material world, although appearing to theology to be transitory and ultimately unreal, is in fact the very vehicle within which religion is generated and perpetuated. Although there is every form of evidence for the existence of the physical world (with regard to it being ‘sensed’), there is no similar evidence to ‘prove’ in the material sense that religion ‘exists’ either on this plane, or any other.

Modern science is irreligious because it is reliant upon the correct observation and recording of physical phenomena. When physical phenomena is correctly categorised and understood by the human mind, the human mind is nolonger functioning in an inverted manner (which sees spirit directing matter), but fully comprehends the fact that physical matter is manipulated through the agency of logically observable cause and effect, and that it is this law that governs the physical processes, and which dictates what happens in the world. As human beings possess an advanced intellect that is capable of planning and building, the world is moulded and transformed through directed human labour. This is just as true for architecture, as it is for medicine, or physics, etc. None of these important subjects are premised upon blind faith, but rather upon the most pristine and clear use of logic and reason. The human mind assesses the exact state of matter, learns how and why it changes, and is able, therefore, to manipulate the direction of that change. It is the power of the human intellect that is able to perform this task, and develop methods that lead to a better physical world for humanity to inhabit. However, as humanity has lived under the directorship of the Christian church for over a thousand years, the habit of gaining comfort from a blind faith is difficult to break.

The paranormal industry is a modern attempt at recreating the mystery associated with theistic faith, or established religion. Its nature is always that of implied ‘other worldliness’, that is never proven to exist, and this is its attraction. Even before the advent of the internet, the paranormal as a subject was known to be a big seller. Today, the paranormal is proliferated throughout the world and generates millions of dollars of income for certain individuals that peddle such a consumable. The paranormal is used as a form of ‘infotainment’, where a story is presented that implies at the very least an unsolvable mystery, and at the very most, as proof of the existence of a hither unseen spiritual realm. None of this transcends the material brain that generates it, and is therefore, a product of the material world. Simply imagining another realm does not mean that this alternative realm exists, regardless of how the facts on this plane are manipulated in a attempt to prove its existence. Every so-called paranormal event has an explanation within the physical world that does not involve religiosity. This is also true of those situations which are baffling at the moment due to a lack of evidence and understanding. A aeroplane that when missing around 60 years ago, for instance, the disappearance of which attracted an immense body of folklore developed around UFO abductions – is found hidden from view in a crash site on the side of a remote mountain. Despite how many times logic and reason triumphs over uninformed speculation, the power of theistic religion always retains its attractiveness to a certain type of human mind. This is odd when it is considered that ‘mystery’ (i.e. ‘not knowing’), is preferred over ‘certainty’, even though humanity has benefited immeasurably through the certainty of ‘knowing’ (i.e. science), and suffered equally immeasurably from ‘not knowing’ (i.e. ignorance).

As a concrete example of the inverted mind at work in the realm of the paranormal, the following entertaining story will suffice:

1815: The case of Diderici Who Vanished into Thin Air!

In 1815, a singular event occurred at the prison of Weichselmünde in Poland. A valet named Diderici had been imprisoned for impersonating his master after the latter had died of a stroke. On this particular day, he was one of many prisoners shackled together in a line and walking in the exercise yard of the prison.
Inexplicably, Diderici began to fade from view. In later interviews with prisoners and guards, it was determined that — in full view of the men both in front and behind the prisoner — Diderici became invisible; and moments later, his manacles clinked to the ground, slack, showing they were no longer holding anything. Nothing more was ever heard of Diderici.
The Real Story of Diderici

A prisoner named Diderici did in fact go missing at Weichselmünde prison, but in 1812~1813, not 1815. Due to a previous escape attempt, Diderici had to wear heavy iron fetters at all times. When the prison was surrendered by the French back to the Prussians in 1813, the roll of prisoners was checked and Diderici was found to have the word ‘missing’ written next to his name. When the commandant was questioned about where Diderici was, he offered up his guess that the heavily-weighted prisoner had possibly leaped or fallen into the Vistula River while walking on the walls of the fortress at a moment when he was not being watched… which sounds suspiciously like it wasn’t accidental, though it is also true that Diderici had attempted to escape once already. Perhaps he had tried again, successfully or not. So he did not vanish supernaturally in full view of witnesses, as the legend attests.

(Both Extracts From: http://anomalyinfo.com/Stories/didericis-actual-fate)

 

Marx and Revolutionary Shakespeare

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

‘As his home town is increasingly colonised by tourists, whether or not they choose to visit the theatre which bears his name, the long-suffering son of Stratford is meanwhile being picked apart by historicists, feminists, Marxists, new historicists, post-feminists, deconstructionalists, anti-deconstructionalists, post-modernists, cultural imperialists and post-colonialists. Perhaps it is time someone tried to put him back together again.’

(Anthony Holden: William Shakespeare – His Life and Work)

A contemporary Chinese language text from Mainland China, states that both Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (the founders of Scientific Socialism), thought very highly of the English poet and playwright William Shakespeare (1564-1616). furthermore, neither advocate of Communist Revolution would have a bad word said against this thoroughly bourgeois and land-owning bard, as Marx always said that although the bourgeois (middle) class was responsible for the repugnant capitalist system, nevertheless, many individuals within that class possessed an insight that transcended the limitations of their own socio-economic conditioning, and through expressing that insight in whatever format that was applicable to these ‘progressive’ individuals, were able to ferment revolution, and facilitate the eventual over-throw of their own class dominance for the universal benefit of the evolution of humanity. For Marx, Shakespeare possessed the mantle of ‘high art’ in an age were the bourgeois class had not yet secured political power for itself, but which was definitely heading in a direction that would end with the execution of King Charles I, and the permanent usurping of the aristocracy from political power. As a potential revolutionary, Shakespeare was an outstanding dramatist and poet of the European Renaissance era. Although Marx was well-read, and had studied the works of many poets and playwrights that had written in German, French and English, his considered opinion was that the work of William Shakespeare was not only original, but existed within a transcendent (and therefore revolutionary) category of its own, very similar to the genius philosophers and poets of ancient and classical Greece. Not only this, but Marx understood that Shakespeare’s work contained a highly ‘political’ central core of expression, that was disguised or camouflaged by veneers of drama and entertainment. William Shakespeare was a revolutionary subversive of such advanced ability that he not only continued to expose and undermine his contemporary socio-economic system, but became famous (and rich) in the process. Shakespeare, through his use of dramatised historical narratives, was able to ‘entertain’ and ‘move’ all those who witnessed his plays or heard his sonnets, at the first point of contact, whilst the underlying (deconstructive) elements of his true intentions, permeated the subconscious minds of his audience without conscious resistance, to re-emerge no doubt, at a later date throughout their disparate lives.

Although it is true that neither Marx nor Engels made a specific study of any of Shakespeare’s numerous plays or sonnets, modern Chinese scholarship (which has made a study of the influence of Shakespeare within the collected works of Marx and Engels), has revealed that the plays and characters of Shakespeare were often mentioned (or quoted) throughout the work of Marx and Engels. In fact, within the writings and letters of Marx, Shakespeare’s work is referenced as many as 147 separate times (as a means for Marx to positively elaborate this or that specific point he was making). Among the 37 works written by Shakespeare, Marx cites 21 titles throughout his main work (a number that does not include Shakespeare references contained within Marx’s personal correspondence). Throughout his main work, Marx mentions 47 Shakespearean characters by name, with the most frequent being Henry VI, and John Falstaff (from ‘The Merry Wives of Windsor’), which appear 32 times. This is because Marx practised the habit of quoting extracts of Shakespeare’s plays – stating more than once that Shakespeare had a better understanding of money, than did a modern German philosopher (quoting from Timon of Athens). In March of 1857, Marx satired Palmerston in his article entitled ‘The Coming Election in England’, using references from Shakespeare’s Richard III and King John – ridiculing Palmerston for the British government’s forced importation of opium into China. In defence of China -Marx asserts that this despicable British imperialist policy is ‘turning heaven and earth upside down’. In a letter to La Salle in May, 1859, Engels stated that German drama would do well to learn from Shakespeare, who wrote with a perfect combination of history and vivid imagination.

Marx and Engels existed more than 250 years after Shakespeare, and yet still affirmed the significance and value of Shakespeare’s works. Not only because Shakespeare’s works played a progressive role in the Renaissance, but also in the then stage of proletarian development. Shakespeare’s writing played a progressive role within the bourgeoisie of his time, so that even in modern capitalist society, the existent bourgeois ideological is subtly undermined. This policy has dialectical value in the development of historical forces that lead to an eventual Socialist Revolution.  Marx and Engels, from the historical reality of class struggle and the social role of literature, have historically affirmed Shakespeare’s revolutionary position, possessing both the viewpoint and method of the proletariat. Shakespeare is the ‘soul of the times’, and ‘he does not belong to any single  era, but simultaneously belongs to all eras’. In three or four hundred years, Shakespeare’s works have crossed all geographical and linguistic boundaries, and have become the common wealth of the people in all times, and in all places. Below are included two extended examples of how Marx uses Shakespeare in a revolutionary manner:

The Grundrisse (1857-1858)

(4) PRODUCTION. MEANS OF PRODUCTION AND RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION. RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND RELATIONS OF CIRCULATION. FORMS OF THE STATE AND FORMS OF CONSCIOUSNESS IN RELATION TO RELATIONS OF PRODUCTION AND CIRCULATION. LEGAL RELATIONS. FAMILY RELATIONS.

Notabene in regard to points to be mentioned here and not to be forgotten:

(1) War developed earlier than peace; the way in which certain economic relations such as wage labour, machinery etc. develop earlier, owing to war and in the armies etc., than in the interior of bourgeois society. The relation of productive force and relations of exchange also especially vivid in the army.

(2) Relation of previous ideal historiography to the real. Namely of the so-called cultural histories, which are only histories of religions and of states. (On that occasion something can also be said about the various kinds of previous historiography. The so-called objective. Subjective (moral among others). The philosophical.)

(3) Secondary and tertiary matters; in general, derivative, inherited, not original relations of production. Influence here of international relations.

(4) Accusations about the materialism of this conception. Relation to naturalistic materialism.

(5) Dialectic of the concepts productive force (means of production) and relation of production, a dialectic whose boundaries are to be determined, and which does not suspend the real difference.

(6) The uneven development of material production relative to e.g. artistic development. In general, the concept of progress not to be conceived in the usual abstractness. Modern art etc. This disproportion not as important or so difficult to grasp as within practical-social relations themselves. E.g. the relation of education. Relation of the United States to Europe. But the really difficult point to discuss here is how relations of production develop unevenly as legal relations. Thus e.g. the relation of Roman private law (this less the case with criminal and public law) to modern production.

(7) This conception appears as necessary development. But legitimation of chance. How. (Of freedom also, among other things.) (Influence of means of communication. World history has not always existed; history as world history a result.)

(8) The point of departure obviously from the natural characteristic; subjectively and objectively. Tribes, races etc.

In the case of the arts, it is well known that certain periods of their flowering are out of all proportion to the general development of society, hence also to the material foundation, the skeletal structure as it were, of its organization. For example, the Greeks compared to the moderns or also Shakespeare. It is even recognized that certain forms of art, e.g. the epic, can no longer be produced in their world epoch-making, classical stature as soon as the production of art, as such, begins; that is, that certain significant forms within the realm of the arts are possible only at an undeveloped stage of artistic development. If this is the case with the relation between different kinds of art within the realm of the arts, it is already less puzzling that it is the case in the relation of the entire realm to the general development of society. The difficulty consists only in the general formulation of these contradictions. As soon as they have been specified, they are already clarified.

Let us take e.g. the relation of Greek art and then of Shakespeare to the present time. It is well known that Greek mythology is not only the arsenal of Greek art but also its foundation. Is the view of nature and of social relations on which the Greek imagination and hence Greek [mythology] is based possible with self-acting mule spindles and railways and locomotives and electrical telegraphs? What chance has Vulcan against Roberts and Co., Jupiter against the lightning-rod and Hermes against the Crédit Mobilier? All mythology overcomes and dominates and shapes the forces of nature in the imagination and by the imagination; it therefore vanishes with the advent of real mastery over them. What becomes of Fama alongside Printing House Square? Greek art presupposes Greek mythology, i.e. nature and the social forms already reworked in an unconsciously artistic way by the popular imagination. This is its material. Not any mythology whatever, i.e. not an arbitrarily chosen unconsciously artistic reworking of nature (here meaning everything objective, hence including society). Egyptian mythology could never have been the foundation or the womb of Greek art. But, in any case, a mythology. Hence, in no way a social development which excludes all mythological, all mythologizing relations to nature; which therefore demands of the artist an imagination not dependent on mythology.

From another side: is Achilles possible with powder and lead? Or the Iliad with the printing press, not to mention the printing machine? Do not the song and the saga and the muse necessarily come to an end with the printer’s bar, hence do not the necessary conditions of epic poetry vanish?

But the difficulty lies not in understanding that the Greek arts and epic are bound up with certain forms of social development. The difficulty is that they still afford us artistic pleasure and that in a certain respect they count as a norm and as an unattainable model.

A man cannot become a child again, or he becomes childish. But does he not find joy in the child’s naïvité, and must he himself not strive to reproduce its truth at a higher stage? Does not the true character of each epoch come alive in the nature of its children? Why should not the historic childhood of humanity, its most beautiful unfolding, as a stage never to return, exercise an eternal charm? There are unruly children and precocious children. Many of the old peoples belong in this category. The Greeks were normal children. The charm of their art for us is not in contradiction to the undeveloped stage of society on which it grew. [It] is its result, rather, and is inextricably bound up, rather, with the fact that the unripe social conditions under which it arose, and could alone arise, can never return.

An earlier example from Marx reads:

Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844

The Power of Money in Bourgeois Society (Third Manuscript)

If man’s feelings, passions, etc., are not merely anthropological phenomena in the (narrower) sense, but truly ontological [41] affirmations of being (of nature), and if they are only really affirmed because their object exists for them as a sensual object, then it is clear that:

1. They have by no means merely one mode of affirmation, but rather that the distinct character of their existence, of their life, is constituted by the distinct mode of their affirmation. In what manner the object exists for them, is the characteristic mode of their gratification.

2. Wherever the sensuous affirmation is the direct annulment of the object in its independent form (as in eating, drinking, working up of the object, etc.), this is the affirmation of the object.

3. Insofar as man, and hence also his feeling, etc., is human, the affirmation of the object by another is likewise his own gratification.

4. Only through developed industry – i.e., through the medium of private property – does the ontological essence of human passion come into being, in its totality as well as in its humanity; the science of man is therefore itself a product of man’s own practical activity.

5. The meaning of private property – apart from its estrangement – is the existence of essential objects for man, both as objects of enjoyment and as objects of activity.

By possessing the property of buying everything, by possessing the property of appropriating all objects, money is thus the object of eminent possession. The universality of its property is the omnipotence of its being. It is therefore regarded as an omnipotent being. Money is the procurer between man’s need and the object, between his life and his means of life. But that which mediates my life for me, also mediates the existence of other people for me. For me it is the other person.

“What, man! confound it, hands and feet
And head and backside, all are yours!
And what we take while life is sweet,
Is that to be declared not ours?

“Six stallions, say, I can afford,
Is not their strength my property?
I tear along, a sporting lord,
As if their legs belonged to me.”

Goethe: Faust (Mephistopheles)

Shakespeare in Timon of Athens:

“Gold? Yellow, glittering, precious gold?
No, Gods, I am no idle votarist! …
Thus much of this will make black white, foul fair,
Wrong right, base noble, old young, coward valiant.
… Why, this
Will lug your priests and servants from your sides,
Pluck stout men’s pillows from below their heads:
This yellow slave
Will knit and break religions, bless the accursed;
Make the hoar leprosy adored, place thieves
And give them title, knee and approbation
With senators on the bench: This is it
That makes the wappen’d widow wed again;
She, whom the spital-house and ulcerous sores
Would cast the gorge at, this embalms and spices
To the April day again. Come, damned earth,
Thou common whore of mankind, that put’st odds
Among the rout of nations.”

And also later:

“O thou sweet king-killer, and dear divorce
‘Twixt natural son and sire! thou bright defiler
Of Hymen’s purest bed! thou valiant Mars!
Thou ever young, fresh, loved and delicate wooer
Whose blush doth thaw the consecrated snow
That lies on Dian’s lap! Thou visible God!
That solder’st close impossibilities,
And makest them kiss! That speak’st with every tongue,
||XLII| To every purpose! O thou touch of hearts!
Think, thy slave man rebels, and by thy virtue
Set them into confounding odds, that beasts
May have the world in empire!”

Shakespeare excellently depicts the real nature of money. To understand him, let us begin, first of all, by expounding the passage from Goethe.

That which is for me through the medium of money – that for which I can pay (i.e., which money can buy) – that am I myself, the possessor of the money. The extent of the power of money is the extent of my power. Money’s properties are my – the possessor’s – properties and essential powers. Thus, what I am and am capable of is by no means determined by my individuality. I am ugly, but I can buy for myself the most beautiful of women. Therefore I am not ugly, for the effect of ugliness – its deterrent power – is nullified by money. I, according to my individual characteristics, am lame, but money furnishes me with twenty-four feet. Therefore I am not lame. I am bad, dishonest, unscrupulous, stupid; but money is honoured, and hence its possessor. Money is the supreme good, therefore its possessor is good. Money, besides, saves me the trouble of being dishonest: I am therefore presumed honest. I am brainless, but money is the real brain of all things and how then should its possessor be brainless? Besides, he can buy clever people for himself, and is he who has [In the manuscript: ‘is’. – Ed.] power over the clever not more clever than the clever? Do not I, who thanks to money am capable of all that the human heart longs for, possess all human capacities? Does not my money, therefore, transform all my incapacities into their contrary?

If money is the bond binding me to human life, binding society to me, connecting me with nature and man, is not money the bond of all bonds? Can it not dissolve and bind all ties? Is it not, therefore, also the universal agent of separation? It is the coin that really separates as well as the real binding agent – the […] [One word in the manuscript cannot be deciphered. – Ed.]chemical power of society.

Shakespeare stresses especially two properties of money:

1. It is the visible divinity – the transformation of all human and natural properties into their contraries, the universal confounding and distorting of things: impossibilities are soldered together by it.

2. It is the common whore, the common procurer of people and nations.

The distorting and confounding of all human and natural qualities, the fraternisation of impossibilities – the divine power of money – lies in its character as men’s estranged, alienating and self-disposing species-nature. Money is the alienated ability of mankind.

That which I am unable to do as a man, and of which therefore all my individual essential powers are incapable, I am able to do by means of money. Money thus turns each of these powers into something which in itself it is not – turns it, that is, into its contrary.

If I long for a particular dish or want to take the mail-coach because I am not strong enough to go by foot, money fetches me the dish and the mail-coach: that is, it converts my wishes from something in the realm of imagination, translates them from their meditated, imagined or desired existence into their sensuous, actual existence – from imagination to life, from imagined being into real being. In effecting this mediation, [money] is the truly creative power.

No doubt the demand also exists for him who has no money, but his demand is a mere thing of the imagination without effect or existence for me, for a third party, for the [others],||XLIII| and which therefore remains even for me unreal and objectless. The difference between effective demand based on money and ineffective demand based on my need, my passion, my wish, etc., is the difference between being and thinking, between that which exists within me merely as an idea and the idea which exists as a real object outside of me.

If I have no money for travel, I have no need – that is, no real and realisable need – to travel. If I have the vocation for study but no money for it, I have no vocation for study – that is, no effective, no true vocation. On the other hand, if I have really no vocation for study but have the will and the money for it, I have an effective vocation for it. Money as the external, universal medium and faculty (not springing from man as man or from human society as society) for turning an image into reality and reality into a mere image, transforms the real essential powers of man and nature into what are merely abstract notions and therefore imperfections and tormenting chimeras, just as it transforms real imperfections and chimeras – essential powers which are really impotent, which exist only in the imagination of the individual – into real powers and faculties. In the light of this characteristic alone, money is thus the general distorting of individualities which turns them into their opposite and confers contradictory attributes upon their attributes.

Money, then, appears as this distorting power both against the individual and against the bonds of society, etc., which claim to be entities in themselves. It transforms fidelity into infidelity, love into hate, hate into love, virtue into vice, vice into virtue, servant into master, master into servant, idiocy into intelligence, and intelligence into idiocy.

Since money, as the existing and active concept of value, confounds and confuses all things, it is the general confounding and confusing of all things – the world upside-down – the confounding and confusing of all natural and human qualities.

He who can buy bravery is brave, though he be a coward. As money is not exchanged for any one specific quality, for any one specific thing, or for any particular human essential power, but for the entire objective world of man and nature, from the standpoint of its possessor it therefore serves to exchange every quality for every other, even contradictory, quality and object: it is the fraternisation of impossibilities. It makes contradictions embrace.

Assume man to be man and his relationship to the world to be a human one: then you can exchange love only for love, trust for trust, etc. If you want to enjoy art, you must be an artistically cultivated person; if you want to exercise influence over other people, you must be a person with a stimulating and encouraging effect on other people. Every one of your relations to man and to nature must be a specific expression, corresponding to the object of your will, of your real individual life. If you love without evoking love in return – that is, if your loving as loving does not produce reciprocal love; if through a living expression of yourself as a loving person you do not make yourself a beloved one, then your love is impotent – a misfortune.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2017.

Chinese Language Reference:

http://wemedia.ifeng.com/282574490620879/wemedia.shtml

English Language References:

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1857/grundrisse/ch01.htm#loc3

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/power.htm

http://marxengels.public-archive.net/en/ME0998en.html#Pa

Tucker, Robert C, The Marx-Engels Reader, Norton, (1978), Pages 102-4, 254.

Holden, Anthony, William Shakespeare – His Life and Work, ABACUS, (1999), Page 1 (Prologue)

 

Karl Marx (1818-1883) Last Words

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

41 Maitland Park (Marx Residence 1875-1883)

Marx (who was living at 41 Maitland Park, London, NW) was sat upstairs in his favourite armchair by a fire to keep warm (with his feet in a mustard-bath), awaiting the arrival of his lifelong friend Friedrich Engels. When Engels arrived (at around 2:30pm) on Wednesday, the 14th of March, 1883, there was a commotion in the Marx family home.  He was met by ‘Lenchen’ (i.e. Helene Demuth) – the long-term live-in house-keeper (and possibly mother of Marx’s son Freddy Demuth) – who informed him that Marx had slipped into a ‘half-sleep’.

00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

In the one or two minutes it took Engels and Demuth to get upstairs – Karl Marx had passed away sat-up in his armchair. Although I have read a number of biographies about Karl Marx, none have specifically mentioned last words. However, further research suggests that Karl Marx uttered the following ‘final’ words to his house-keeper Helene Demuth sometime before Engels arrived:

Karl Marx: “Go on, get out. Last words are for fools who haven’t said enough.”

5c749ed8g6c2c3d897983690

Hegel and the Yijing (I Ching)

000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

I was researching the Yijing on the Chinese language internet recently, and I came across this fascinating quote attributed to the 19th century German philosopher GW Hegel:

‘黑格尔曾经说过:“《易经》代表了中国人的智慧,就人类心灵所创造的图形和形象来找出人之所以为人的道理,这是一种崇高的事业。’

Presumably, this is a Chinese translation from the original German language text attributed to Hegel – possibly an extract from his ‘Philosophy of History – where he discusses the ‘I Ching’.  This extract can be translated as:

‘Hegel once said: “The Book of Changes represents the wisdom of the Chinese people, and it is a lofty undertaking to find out the reasoning of man as human beings (acting within a physical world), through the construction of graphs and images created by the human mind.”‘

Although I have not accessed a contemporary English translation of this extract, on the face of it, Hegel’s opinion of this ancient Chinese ‘wisdom’ text, seems to be both succinct and precise. Not only this, but Hegel appears to be highly respectful of Chinese culture, but further research on my part reveals quite a different picture. I have encountered Hegel primarily through the work of Karl Marx (a former Young Hegelian), who ruthlessly ‘critiqued’ Hegel as being a redundant ‘idealist’, who embodied the very essence of the bourgeois ‘inverted’ mind-set (which has its origin in the theology of the Judeo-Christian religion, and which specifies the material world miraculously emerged out of spirit).  Marx favoured the use of dialectics to establish reality, but stated that Hegel’s view of that reality was ‘distorted’ due to his historical Judeo-Christian conditioning (which he had failed to ‘breakout’ from). This judgement held true – Marx said – even if Hegel thought himself a ‘secularist’.

It transpires that Hegel was analysing the I Ching briefly, as part of his general policy of lecturing on the ‘supremacy’ of Eurocentric thought over that of other cultures, including India and China.  Obviously, this form of rhetorical racism, served as a philosophical underpinning of European imperialism and colonialism.  The fact that both Indian and Chinese culture is far-older in its sophistication and achievements than anything in Europe, has to be ignored for racism to be the defining aspect of interpretation. The Buddha’s use of a ‘pristine’ logic’, for instance, probably pre-dates its Greek equivalent, and may well have influenced the Greek development. If this is correct, then it was the Buddha’s ‘logic’ that spread to Greece and into Europe proper, eventually arriving at Hegel himself.  Even if this isn’t the case, alternative Asian and Chinese forms of ‘logic’ (like that found in ancient Egypt and other parts of Africa), must be judged within its own historical context, including the often stunning achievements such systems of thought encouraged and sustained.  In this regard, Hegel is wrong to label Chinese culture ‘superficial’ in its philosophical thinking, as it bears no association with the proper academic assessment of history, cultural development, politics, sociology or economics.  Despite explaining exactly what the Yijing is (quite ingeniously), Hegel, nevertheless, is uttering an ‘ahistorical’ statement which is deliberately ‘cut-off’ from the rest of world history.  Ironically, this example serves to expose the ‘irrational’ nature of Eurocentric racism (which is ‘illogical’ in the extreme).

%d bloggers like this: