On the Masks of Political Society
Before I get started, I want to offer background on this piece. I was involved in some online political groups and was discussing theory a lot more actively then, and used to try and think of new ways of thought as I was navigating radical spaces. I famously used to be Mao-Spontex, hence the story behind my handle “La Sponteciste”. Spontaneity still holds a place in my tendency as an immediatist, but I don’t think it’s that worthwhile. Anyways, I came across this essay while looking for an article I wrote for a college class, gave it some edits to be more congruent with my current thoughts on the matter, and for legibility and clarity, and I decided I could put it up here, considering I haven’t made much progress on other articles I’ve been working on. So yes, I am still alive. Thank you for taking the time to read this garbage — suya y siempre, Iya Guazabara Amá.
In political society we see many ideologies and tendencies tossed around as if these ideologies are truly separated. These ideologies are professed to be supposedly opposed to each other, such as neoliberalism and neoconservatism, despite being fundamentally the same in their baseline economic interests. The main differences between these ideologies are their persistence on cherry-picked issues and need to be opposed to one another in order to maintain relevance. These are not consistent ideologies when brought criticism from either a materialist, philosophical, or even idealist lens. Even still, we have ideologies that fail to avoid capitulation, despite actively opposing and espousing actual material, philosophical, and ideal differences from the aforementioned, such as Marxism-Leninism and Left Communism. I plan to analyze what makes them capitulate, and bring forth the Seven Major Points of Political Emphasis, and the masks they present in reality despite their ideological positions. A disclaimer on the subject, these are tendencies in terms of their relation to laws of capital and competition, their capitulation or subservience to it. This is not meant to be a political compass or a prescriptive measure, but a descriptive measure to the nature of the trends of political ideologies in certain circles.
The Outline of these ideologies, in order of their opposition to capital(ism), are as follows:
- Outside of Capital
- Left Tendency / Left Thought
- Social Governance
- Subjugationism
- Social Masking
- Pure Capital
- Devolution
The significance of these is based on either how likely they are to capitulate to capital (the lower end) and how likely they are to seek to abolish capital (the upper end).
The descriptive elements of these statements are also in order of their simplicity to describe. We will follow the order I have so presented, starting with the Outside of Capital. I am using the term “Outside of Capital” to describe tendencies and ideologies that (as far as we can speculate right now) actually negate capital by practice and by trend. These are tendencies and ideologies that cannot be defined by a specific relation to capital as they are the absolute end to capital and capitalism. Examples of such would be: Post-Left, Ultra-Leftism, Anti-Leftism (radical tendency), Communism, Anarchism, Primitivism, Anti-Civilization, etc. Keep in mind this is not an endorsement of these tendencies or ideologies, nor saying that these are necessarily more correct than leftist ideologies; but merely a necessity of their nature to be post-capitalist, as they can only exist outside of capital. These specifically focus on the conditions of post-capitalism, as opposed to current relations or pre-conditions of post-capitalism. By this condition we can necessarily consider these ideologies and tendencies to be truly post-capitalist, or “Outside of Capital” by nature. After this point, all the masks have a direct and active relation to capital prior to its negation.
The next tendency to be discussed will be Left Tendency, or Left Thought. These are interchangeable in use, depending on which you prefer. Left Tendency is defined by its relation to capital and desire to negate it, while focusing on creating the pre-conditions for its negation. The thought pattern will follow the lines of building political economy or building the foundation for post-capitalism. The most clear examples of this are Marxism-Leninism or Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, or even Left Communism. These ideologies and tendencies are focused on the maintenance of a state involved with the creation of the pre-conditions of communism in order to perform the “transitionary phase” toward communism. Differences exist in the clarity of the respective definition of the aforementioned phase, as those who lean to the more classical marxist sense tend to see it as the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, whereas the more Marxist-Leninist types view it as Lenin’s distinction of socialism and communism, and a prescriptive to the phases of human development towards communism, rather than the thought of directly developing to communism. Some anarchist and libertarian philosophies follow this idea(l) as well, such as anarchist-syndicalism and Market Socialism.
Anarchist syndicalism views unions as a likely successful technique to seize power through the working class and work to abolish capitalism and its relations. However, the issue is that unions are necessarily a product of capital, and their revolutionary power has decreased since the most famous attempt to achieve this: the Spanish Civil War. Because of this, they are mostly ineffective in real material change towards a post-capitalist reality, and therefore recreate or capitulate to capital despite their desires and goals to end it. Market socialism does not view the market system as the inherent issue of capitalism, but the alienation of the worker from the productive cycle and profit as the major issue. They believe that ameliorating the alienation of the worker will lead to a proper socialist society and view “socialist markets” as the path to post-capitalism. While market socialists are correct that socialized means of production alongside privatized appropriation of production is one of the fundamental issues of capitalism, it is not the sole defining aspect of capitalism. It still does not account for the laws of: competition, accumulation of capital, concentration of capital, and monopolization. These are fundamental aspects of capitalism that market socialism fails to properly address within its own framework, as there is no resolute solution to this within the market socialist framework. Thus, despite desiring to abolish capital, market socialism necessarily capitulates to it.
The primary issues of ideologies and tendencies within Left Thought are primarily based in their leftist rhetoric and theory not accurately being applied, and Red Flag reformism abounding under this mask. Such prime examples are any Marxist-Leninist state existing today: China, Cuba, Vietnam, and Laos. They view themselves as opposing capital while in practice using “managed capitalism” in order to develop the preconditions for communism, as well as biding their time for the world-wide spread of socialism-favoring countries. Despite their plans and desires to abolish capital, they capitulate to reformism, opportunism, revisionism, or even reactionary tendencies and thus ultimately fail in their endeavors. Examples of this type of opportunism are the failures of Marxist-Leninists and Marxist-Leninist-Maoists failing to denounce or actively curb their cults of personality and persistence or reliance on great man theory. This is partially what led to the failures of the USSR (post-Lenin, as Stalin was reactionary and revisionist), the capitulation of China after the death of Mao (the opportunists and capitalist lines showed their full face through Deng Xiaoping), and of course the dissolution of the People’s War in Peru after the capture of “Chairman Gonzalo,” as he was the source of the ideological basis of Sendero Luminoso, and the source of the party’s and military’s discipline and support. If this is always the case remains to be seen, but given our current view of these countries and attempts, we can safely assume that they have already fallen short of their goals.
The next mask we shall unveil is that of Social Governance. This is a system described by its opposition to the major grievances of capitalism, and truly has a desire to help its people, but fails to attempt to abolish capital and its relations. Another explanation would be a system that submits to the people, truly truly, but necessarily still caters to capital and capitalism due to material necessity, without a direct desire to eliminate this condition. Such examples would be the “Pink Tide” in Latin America: Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia (while under former president Evo Morales), and countries with the term “socialism” actively written in their constitution, like Sri Lanka. These countries take active or rhetorical steps in order to care for their population but fail to eliminate the effects of capital on its population or capital itself, which still leads to some unrest. Of course under the capitalist hegemony they must function under capitalism in order to stay alive, but still are susceptible to major countries that are the epicenter of capitalist interference, most notably the United States of America, as several interventions have occurred throughout the Americas on behalf of “anti-communism” regardless of their true political character. These countries and tendencies struggle for not much gain, only gaining marginal improvement due to their social position in the hierarchy of “important” countries.
What is likely the most reactionary and controversial opinion (aside from Devolution) on this list, is the idea of Subjugationism. In the framework of subjugationism, the idea itself is anti-capitalist but does not seek to abolish capital itself. It moreso wants to make capital a tool for itself. This can make itself shown in ideologies like National Syndicalism, Fascism, Nazism, and other reactionary ideologies. However, this is not limited to just these reactionary and authoritarian ideologies. This could also be used to describe Cuba, which is not reactionary, but rather manages capital rather strictly, while still adhering to the nature of capital, maintaining a false sense of dominance over it. It believes capital to be rampant and in need of control. People who believe in mixed economies (even moreso than the social democrats that call themselves “democratic socialists”) use subjugationism to manage both capital and the working class pull of radical politics, thus making it a centric descriptor. Keep in mind that many of these descriptors are not wholly of themselves, and can be used interchangeably or in combination depending on the political situation. Subjugationism is a more finicky and secondary descriptor, and isn’t always suitable to be used alone. It is a significant relationship with capital, however, which I believe qualifies it as being worth studying as its own. It also denotes an important turning point in either direction in the relationship towards capital.
Following Subjugationism is the idea of Social Masking. This is by far the most common descriptor of governance today. Despite being able to be described by Left Thought, in my opinion the People’s Republic of China falls under social masking as well. Social Masking is the description of a pro-capitalist system that must feign support for the masses in order to keep capitalism propped up. Juxtaposed to Social Governance, we could consider this a system that submits to capital, but caters to the people, in lieu of the opposite. It serves to placate the masses while ultimately serving capitalists and capitalism. Examples of this are lesser leveled neoliberal states, and milquetoast social democracies that are hubs of industry: Germany, United States, United Kingdom, etc. These countries and systems consistently show their opposition to the working and impoverished classes through material reality, while through policy putting on a show of who cares about workers more. Such is the cycle between the Liberal and Conservative parties of the UK, and the Republican and Democratic parties of the United States. This idea was laid out through the analysis of Friedrich Engels in Chapter Three of Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, in which the bourgeoisie had to offer more concessions to the working class out of necessity to show that they had truly escaped feudalism and that “life is better, now;” to an extent. This evolves into liberal support for oppressed struggles through verbal gymnastics, such as the spectacle of pride month and the marketing schemes that surround it. This is the result of capitalism’s inability to show its true face when class consciousness abounds and is not actively suppressed. It therefore must be passively suppressed in order to protect capitalism’s standing in their eyes. They must view capitalism as freedom, not alienation; as better rather than bad. This aids nationalism, specifically the overtly commodified nationalism of the United States.
The next two are rather simple in concept but may be confusing to some. The first of these is what I will refer to as Pure Capital. This form of capitalism has no holds barred, and actively expresses its hatred for the lower classes of people, yet still serves them as much as it needs to in order to make sure they can live long enough to make it to work the next day. These are what we consider to be hell-on-earth places to work. Places that espouse extreme neoliberalism and super free-market hegemony. Places like this include Chile, Hong Kong, Singapore, and possibly India, depending on your perspective. Some of these places can espouse reactionary ideas and behavior and disdain for those who fail amidst the competitive nature of capitalism. These places actively reinforce their class systems and actively regiment aspects of society in order to make these appear normal. Places like these are viewed in both high regard and in low standing by those in any other descriptive system. People from social masking systems will view their productive capacity as astounding and praise them for it, while sharing some pity for workers, as they think unto themselves “at least it isn’t me,” while they wear fast fashion and buy cheap toys.
The final descriptive system is Devolution. When I shared this concept to my peers, initially they were confused as to this concept. They said it seemed a bit strange to even give it a special condition for itself. However, since then we have seen it espoused, and it is the pure reactionary and social darwinist view of the world. Devolution, in short, is: when competition becomes the hegemonic god of all aspects of life, bourgeois individualism is the only rule of law, extinction abounds, and death is inevitable. Many would view this as a necessary result of primitivism, but those people fail to understand the nuances of primitivism and the pure reaction of devolution. In devolution, the flaws of capitalism come to the forefront, but nobody can capture the power to become fascist: it is capitalism in decay. Since this central authority cannot counteract the destructive nature of capitalism’s end stage, chaos ensues. What was once economic anarchy becomes true anarchy, and the competition becomes the superstructure of society. Some places where we can present these cases are in the ongoing conflict in Somalia, the confusion of South Sudan, the civil conflict in Syria, and the liberation efforts in Western Sahara/Morocco. In these places it is not so much the economic relations of capitalism, but the growth of capitalist competition into the only true laws of society. All social interactions become of self-interest and capitalist ideas, whether exposed to the common arguments and aspects of capital prior to it or not. Places like this are fraught with conflict, famine, and death. These places tend to be where the contradictions of imperialism and neo-colonialism show their rotten, decaying faces. Eventually they will return to some form of stability. This is not an end-of-the-world descriptor, but a description of capitalist decay without fascist takeover, or some other hellworld in which such a relationship could exist.
These are descriptors I wished to flesh out in order to properly describe the effective nature of ideologies and tendencies in practice. These are not absolutes, they are relative suggestions based on my opinions and personal observations. If you find them useful, please use them as freely as you wish, but make sure you do your due diligence in order to make sure you are applying these definitions properly. These descriptors are supposed to be used to describe some material and consequential realities of tendencies and systems, not those tendencies and systems themselves. Think of these as tertiary descriptors when discussing effectiveness in terms of post-capitalist circles and post-capitalist discussions. I hope these descriptors have been helpful in having a clear understanding of material and incidental realities of politics in the real world, rather than just in theory.
