Majorityrights Central > Category: Political analysis
Not a matter of guilt, not even a matter of Christianity, Islam or capitalism, but rather the usual suspects making their agenda clear. This expression shows that something different:
It is an unusually brazen assertion of “programmatic coercion” - G.W.
It is a significant statement of the motives of the powers-that-be to impose their programmatic intent to destroy the European genome.
Below is my response to “A New Chapter in the Fascist Internationale” by Alexander Reid Ross, in Counterpunch, September 16, 2015.
Dear Mr. Ross:
I read with great interest your article, “A New Chapter in the Fascist Internationale,” published in Counterpunch and must commend you on your polished syntax and a good, albeit somewhat hasty summary of what is awkwardly termed the “World National-Conservative Movement.” As a long time reader and admirer of some Counterpunch authors who dispel the myth of progress and who tackle the liberal mystique of permanent economic growth, it is quite possible that we have more in common than what may appear in my critical remarks. Having ties with many so-called “White nationalists” in all parts of the world, and being also a Director of the American Freedom Party, let me try to put things into a short conceptual and linguistic perspective first.
The words ‘Fascism’ and ‘Nazism’ are constantly used as weapons to vilify people who identify as White and have a sense of White interests, to the point that these words have now become meaningless. Both have been so much subject to semantic distortions over the last 70 years, to the point that there is no longer any meaningful relationship between current movements labeled with those terms and the cultural-political movements in the Europe of the early twentieth century. (I am sure Noam Chomsky would partly agree with that). Instead, the term ‘Fascism’ is tossed around today as a generic locution in order to criminalize and pathologize any non-conformist White person or any group of White people by implying that they are nothing more than xenophobic haters.
Hence, if we look at Fascism or National Socialism through such demonological glasses, we run the risk of landing in the realms of the ancient Greek underworld, more worthy of the Hesiod’s and Homer’s prose and certainly not into a dispassionate Elysian field of objective historical narrative. I am probably acutely (and sadly) aware of the “antifascist meta-language,” having grown up in what was known as communist Yugoslavia. Back then “Fascist beasts,” “Croat Fascist monsters,” “Nazi terrorists,” were a central part of the Communist Party vernacular, and any non-conformist thinker was routinely and permanently consigned to this home-grown bestiary. Alas, what I am witnessing now in the USA and EU media, as well as in higher education, is a recapitulation of these paleo-communist memes, albeit dressed up in more attractive attire and blessed with the legitimacy that only the elite media can confer.
I hope you have read some of the authors mentioned in your article. Otherwise, again, one runs the risk of entangling oneself in the dialogue of the deaf. Apart from books by “mainstream” scholars such as Zeev Sternhell and Ernst Nolte, it is very difficult to find any other contemporary authors who more or less objectively document the intellectual origins of Fascism or Nationalism Socialism. Rather than describing the very real problems confronting these societies or attempting an honest appraisal of the popular appeal and economic achievements of these cultures, we see little more than gratuitous moralizing while at the same time the monstrous police states and mass murder perpetrated by the Left* during the same period are ignored. Without wishing to sound pretentious with my own intellectual baggage, there is no way one can fully grasp the birth of the “conservative revolution,” or Fascism, or National Socialism without being fully proficient in the German and the French languages and knowing very well the cultural heritage of Europe prior to 1922 and 1933.
The fears and concerns motivating the current increase in what you would call fascist parties stem from the tidal waves of non-European immigration that are affecting almost all European countries. These fears and concerns are quite different than those that gave rise to fascism in the 1920s and 1930s, and they are quite legitimate. The attitude of the left* is that people are essentially interchangeable, so that it makes no difference who immigrates to the US or Europe, and the native Whites of those areas have no legitimate interests in preserving their political, demographic and cultural dominance. This is simply not the case.
The immigration issue is critical. The US is projected to be majority non-White in just a few years, and even European countries like the UK that have had relatively homogeneous populations deriving from what is a relatively homogeneous European gene pool for thousands of years are projected to be majority non-White within the century. The ongoing crisis centered most glaringly in Germany promises to speed the day when native Germans, whose ancestors have dominated Central Europe for well over 1000 years will become a minority.
The view that immigrants are interchangeable ignores the costs of multiculturalism in terms of increased conflict, lack of willingness to contribute to public goods like health care, and social cohesion. Thus it’s one thing for the US to have immigrants from various parts of Europe; they have assimilated very well. It’s quite another thing to have immigrants from the Middle East and Africa with very different cultures and very different psychological traits (including IQ levels), and strong tendencies not to assimilate.
On the personal level, yes, I must admit, I feel more at ease talking to working class Americans when visiting a village in the Ozarks, or being a guest of honor at a simple farmer’s house in the German Harz. One finds that the common sense and political judgment of these people often surpass those of many modern scholars focused solely on demonizing movements they do not understand and promoting utopian projects that ignore human nature in favor of creating multicultural societies that are not only prone to ethnic conflict, but violate the legitimate interests of Whites who have dominated these areas for hundreds or, in the case Europe, thousands of years.
Regardless of our possible disagreements and despite the fact that you will likely dismiss me by simply classifying me as a “White supremacist” or “White nationalist” or whatever, I must point out the following: The ongoing balkanization of the USA (where voting patterns increasingly reflect racial divides) bears remarkable similarity to what occurred in the former Yugoslavia shortly before it broke down in 1991. The current EU and the floods of non-European immigrants in Europe — and yes, at this very moment there is a quasi-state of emergency resulting from the migrants/invaders swamping my native Croatia — do not bode well for a starry-eyed project of multiracial and ecumenical conviviality. When the proverbial push comes to shove, one no longer needs to study diverse Levantine or African haplotypes or immerse oneself in the books of cultural pessimists. One must then be ready to weather the storm either by voting for Donald Trump or the American Freedom Party’s Bob Whitaker, or whoever is willing to salvage one’s heritage. I am sure that in a case of emergency you will also figure out which side of the fence it is better to sit on.
“At your feet or at your throat” ?
Is it the case that:
Germans are an enormously logical people, who are capable of wonderful math, science, engineering and technology.
However, that top heavy focus on logic causes them to have weak planks in judgment, such that they will keep on following a logic to its runaway (and/or over-correction/overcompensation), even when it is clearly socially destructive?
We’re not even emphasizing the Nazi example now, we’re talking about how, in the salient example of Frau Merkel, they are treating Greece by comparison to the migration crisis.
Nevertheless, “a rule is a rule”: just as reaction to Jews implied the compensatory rule quite exactly, the Nazis mirrored the Jews in significant, literal ways. Hitler, e.g., maintained: “an eye for an eye a tooth for a tooth” (never mind that one might engage the fact that Leviticus 24 is didactic, and showing people how Not to be, by comparison to the compassion of every other chapter of Leviticus)...
Now, Frau Merkel’s regime expects Europeans to appreciate the logical conclusion of her Jewish guilt reaction, a byproduct of Jew thinking, as it were:
To the Greeks -
First principle: unanimity: “pay us back our predatory, usurious loans”, no room for social praxis and concern for ancient European human ecology and social capital.
The universal principle: good will and the Christian golden rule: ”“The right to political asylum has no limits on the number of asylum seekers” - it’s an altruism and compassion, a logic of meaning and action that must continue to no end.
Though I am not well placed as a critic of German character, one does have to wonder..as I have observed before, in regard to those who say that Germans are/or should be our “leaders.”
Are a people so top-heavy on logic that they would follow it through to its logical conclusion despite what should be the obvious judgment regarding the logic’s vast social destruction to be entrusted with leadership?
It is, rather, apparent that sheer and top heavy logic is good for following rules and orders, not for leadership.
Leadership should be logical but top-heavy in judgment.
However, I am told that 30% of Germans still do Not believe that merely speaking German makes one German, so of course I do not want to exclude Germans across the board from a place at the table of leadership: just that they may not be well placed at the head of the table and certainly not as sole occupants of the table of leadership of Europe at this stage in history.
Not only is the hyperbolic liberalism of German leadership an expression of guilt riddenness, but it is a guilt riddenness for their prior (Nazi) regime’s lack of social judgment for optimal social unanimity and relations (of Europeans and others) - which has made stigmatization of sufficient racism all too easy for liberals - and worse now, a guilt ridden liberal self destruction which the rest of Europe is supposed to share in because of the Nazi lack of social judgment (which in particular cases worked deliberately against us - ! - * and generally speaking worked against us all in result) and because they are so fucking logical - as to carry an absurd lack of judgment and self destruction to its extreme!
* European countries which were targeted for elimination or demotion in sovereignty and influence are supposed to feel guilty and take part in the demise as well.
I am not well placed to critique German character as I will be criticized as being prejudiced against them, but I am for them, not against them - it is their liberals whom I dislike, as I dislike all liberals, imperialists and anti-nationalists; and I like and advocate the 30 percent of normal ones, the normal nationalists along with the ones who can be persuaded to come around.
But I feel obligated under the circumstances - am prompted by Kumiko, who is particularly angered: Not only is Germany’s leadership inviting terrorist cells, it is inviting bizarre and primitive third world practices - such as teaching boys that women are a man’s property; that it is fine to kill those who insult the pedophilic prophet…
Judgment catching up with logic but a bit late:
And of course, I hasten to add, that with this “logic” it is apparently fine to destroy the ancient EGI of Europe, our human ecologies and all that goes with it…
...and wouldn’t that logic come in handy to figure its way around and rationalize all sorts of liberal contradictions and sensible affronts to itself and its neighbors - to make good logical sense of their destruction and ours?
We do not share in their guilt, we do not want to burden them with guilt and we can share with them our free, unburdened ethnonationalist conscience.
Kumiko noted a very interesting additional aspect to this German propensity to be top heavy in logic, that they do not seem to manage ambiguity and contradiction as well as other populations.
Inasmuch as that is true, and it seems that it might be as a pattern (again, not across the board), it would be a problem for dealings in Praxis (the social world) as Aristotle noted, where a certain amount of ambiguity and uncertainty is necessary for its inherent interactive, agentive and reflexive nature - thus, Phronesis (literally, practical judgment) is required and the acceptance of a certain amount of ambiguity necessary to manage social ecologies.
That seems to go to the realm of epistemology and judgment.
In the last part of Eugène Montsalvat‘s review of de Benoist, he is shown to give organizational advice, including moving beyond left and right with observations as to where they both went wrong.
I don’t agree with how he is describing the left, and it is a good occasion to sort that out.
However, I am in significant agreement with the tenor - that capitalism is among our major problems.
With that, he confirms a suggestion from Kumiko to me, that I’ve already accepted. I would take to heart that in promoting the White Left platform that I have not emphasized enough the fact that there would be unions amidst the union that is the racial/national union. I have done that but not enough.
Because I have been so focused on the re-legitimization of racial classification and the unification of people as one class, Kumiko alerts me to the fact that I would be accused of disingenuously wallpapering over bona fide working class concerns for not recognizing their distinct situation.
She advises talking more in terms of syndicalism, and I can see where her advice in that regard, and as it turns out, also de Benoist’s advice in that regard is correct.
My way of handling these differences could use that boost, though I have not exactly been remiss in that. In criticizing the insufficiently descriptive and ultimately dangerous paradigm of “equality / inequality”, I have consistently spoken in terms of qualitative differences within the White Class (and in relation to non-White groups). As opposed to “equality/inequality” and its false comparisons, I have tended to focus on niches, their paradigmatic incommensurability, qualitative symbiosis and the management of differences in respect of difference as opposed to inequality. Nevertheless, forms of syndicalism should correspond with systemic regulation of these differences.
As I have said in many places, and I am no less convinced than ever, that it is a mistake to relinquish the self designation as a left, a White Left. The Jews do not want us to adopt its powerfully organizing world view for that reason, because it does line things up correctly time and again.
Not a left as properly defined in White interests.
I do not idealize the working classes nor would a White Left.
Benoist is correct and very articulate in citing the Enlightenment, its optimism (wow, never thought of that angle, but true) and the liberalism that came of it, but these are not elements of what we are calling the White Left.
The White Left designates these products of the Enlightenmet and categorizes them as “objectivism”, one of the two great adversaries to White/Left/Class/National/Union/Racial (all the same) solidarity.
The two great adversaries to the White Class/Left are Jewish interests and Objectivists/objectivism.
de Benoist needs to recognize where adoption of Enlightenment ideas among ordinary and working class folks is coming from.
Where it isn’t being promoted by Jewish interests it is being promoted by White elitist traitors disingenuously posing as “objectivists” (innocently great and not accountable) and naively accepted by the “lower classes” as “objectivism”, viz., the way it is.
But it is Not leftism, definitely not White leftism as it does not recognize the union’s right to discriminate and hold people accountable to the union’s interests.
Hence, we have not moved beyond right and left, we have merely not caught up to how Jews and White traitors have manipulated these terms to their interests, including not wanting us to have a “White Left” as its organizational capacities are dangerously powerful against them.
de Benoist is correct about that. No argument.
Here I disagree with de Benoist, not in the sense that issues like these can’t be used to distract from objectivist treachery and problems of their exploiting “lower classes”, but in the sense that he is going to the other extreme, and in ignoring race and religious organization of groups antagonistic to race, that he is buying into the same right wing Enlightenment objectivism (and perhaps Jewish manipulation) that he claims to be wise-to.
He goes on to say..
That can be said to be a product of Red (Marxist) Left skullduggery; that is to say, how Jews would apply all peoples in unionized alliance against White capitalists (While Jews themselves maintain their union and the facile unions of those who oppose their enemies).
It is surely wrong to accept the Jewish definition and calibration of the terms.
A union, a White Union, cannot be universal by definition. One is in the union or one is not.
Jews do not want us to have this because it would organize our people in a humane way which is accountable to excellence and differences at the same time.
It can err in this direction but only gets out of hand because the Jews exaggerate these possibilities in order to pander to their paying students. That is, Jewish academics are largely in the big business of selling talk to White female undergraduates: “possibilities” to create college courses and talk talk talk, criticize, criticize, criticize.
Again, exaggeration and distortion of these capacities are the result of Jewish academics who have mixed in and preyed upon enlightenment distortions in order to both misrepresent the left and turn White people off to their organizational capacity in a Left while actually using the victim groups they do marshal as an attack force against Whites.
Again, those are Jewish cultural Marxist perversions.
How can a leftist union favor the scabbing of their union by an open borders policy?
They cannot, it is a contradiction of terms.
That is what the Neo cons and other Jewish led interests are getting people to do.
The White Left is guilty of none of these things.
True, a White Class, the White Left.
This is quite well said, and I will probably take de Benoist’s and Kumiko’s advice to incorporate more snydicalist type thinking ..
I am on the radical side, but taking skepticism to quite that level is what led to the radical skepticism of the enlightenment and subsequently to liberal modernity.
The Christians are a bad example unqualified as such.
I would make it a dual entry, Jewish interests and Objectivism (which includes capitalist interests).
I agree that individualism is a large part of our problem, I understand its philosphical difficulties, but I do not want to summarily and uncritically dismiss it; but rather set it aside as a non-priority while we are under mortal threat as a group by groups.
The Jewish and Objectivist led U.S. is certainly a huge problem, but one must understand that it is Objectivism (admittedly written into its Constitution) and Jewish groups that marshal its forces against other group unionization of peoples.
I believe that Kumiko would like a chance to show that there may be a way to ride the tiger of NATO and US forces toward ethno nationalist aims.
If Christians and Muslims are attacking our enemies that is fine but we cannot be so naive as to think that these universalist and race mixing religions are people we can form formally agreed upon alliances with.
Their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against our interests and untrustworthy.
Same with blacks and Jews. There might be times when they fight groups who are harmful to us, but their overall pattern is overwhelmingly against us and untrustworthy.
Castro is anti-racist. So, I cannot agree with de Benoist.
Not true. Very untrue.
“Literally, why did this even become an argument?”
It’s been brought to my attention that we’re being accused of various things by various people as a result of the article that I posted that was titled ‘English genetic heritage is not German’. It appears that some people, including Carolyn Yeager at The Heretics Hour, have chosen for some reason to seize upon people’s remarks in the comments section of that article to build a characterisation of our position which is very incorrect. DanielS has been accused of being ‘anti-German’, and by proxy I have therefore been accused of abetting ‘anti-German’ thought.
Nothing could be further from the facts. DanielS is not ‘anti-German’, and I’m not abetting ‘anti-German’ thought. In good faith, I’ll assume that Carolyn Yeager’s misinterpretation of my intent is not intentional, and so I’ll explain in the most concise way what my outlook on this is, in the hopes that truth and understanding will prevail.
Heritage and slogans
When I put up the article about how ‘English genetic heritage is not German’, it was entirely for the purpose of showing a way of dispelling the usual liberal sloganeering in the UK that begins with the false appeal to the so-called ‘fact’ of English being all ‘mixed German immigrants’, which is then inexorably extended into a claim that ‘since they are already beyond identification, what is wrong with a little more mixing?’ Obviously the most effective way—a way that is also in accordance with reality—to fight against that kind of liberal sloganeering and to empower the British people to fortify themselves in the belief that the ground they stand on is theirs and that they have a justifiable claim to maintain dominance over their own civic space, is to point out that British people are not merely ‘mixed German immigrants’ of no discernible identity, but in fact they all evolved in the location that they are living in for many thousands of years and as such have a justification to really call themselves ‘British’.
Maintaining this view of a really-existent ‘Britishness’, and suggesting that it should be fashioned into a mass line and propagated to the British people, in no way detracts from the identity of German people, or Germanic peoples as a whole. I don’t see why that should be confusing to some people. It also does not suggest that there should be enmity between Britain and Germany. In fact, it remains our position at Majorityrights that all nations in Europe should stand together while respecting each other’s differences: pan-European regionalism. This is the same position that I also take with regards to Asia and pan-Asian regionalism.
Sometimes mistakes are made
I also get a sense that some of this fury that has been directed toward Majorityrights by the critics, has something to do with the fact that we don’t bow down to Adolf Hitler on every issue, historical and concerning the prosecution of the Second World War. I would say to those people who criticise Majorityrights that it is possible—and this is not a petty-moral statement, it is a statement of cold facts, total administration, and direct geostrategic power concepts—to recognise the structural achievements of the National Socialist movement in Germany and say that it was highly significant in not only raising critical awareness of the influence and threat of Bolshevism, but in fact showing that it was possible to marshal an equally deadly force against them, without having to literally endorse every single ridiculous action and personal preference of Adolf Hitler, every member of the SS, and the general staff of the German Army. Sometimes people do things that are really bad ideas.
It is possible to have a nuanced view, and my view is nuanced.
Obviously, the European war against the Russian Bolshevik regime and its collaborators in Europe, much like the Greater East Asia War against the liberal-capitalist powers, namely, the United States, France, Britain, the Netherlands, and their collaborators, was a crucial moment in history. No alliance in history other than Axis, has been able to unite so many people of diverse ethnic backgrounds against both liberalism and communism at the same time. And no alliance in history has ever come closer to overturning the liberal-capitalist world order in a war of manoeuvre.
These coalitions were to become possible due to the social and economic forces that were activated as a consequence of something like the National Socialist movement of Germany having arisen to power.
Germany rendered assistance to Japan by becoming a viable partner for the duration of the war, and this also engendered a situation where countries like Burma, parts of India, swathes of South East Asia, including Indonesia, Singapore, and others, were able to struggle against their colonial oppressors with the hopes both of independence and of a regional redress of the global systemic inequalities that characterised the liberal-capitalist world order. It also was the case that many Central Asians were enthusiastic about co-operation with Germany as well, particularly some of the Crimean Tatars who must have been relieved to see the 11th German Army under General Erich von Manstein as well as Stay-behind Group D show up in their territory to remove the Russian and Jewish occupiers that had been appearing on their land because of the Soviet incursions into Crimea.
It could be said that in the developing world, the international boundaries and the recognition of ethno-states governed by their own ethnic group’s elites rather than those of another group, is a kind of world that could not have come into existence without the ethno-nationalist consciousness and the live-fire demonstration of the use of deadly force that characterised the Axis approach, particularly in the Pacific.
It wasn’t that any particular person imposed National Socialism onto the German people from above only. It was actually the fact that the liberal-capitalist world view was vying for hegemony over all spheres of human life, and as a result, the ethno-nationalist world view had to fight against it in all spheres of life in order that it could triumph over it. This is the meaning of ‘totalitarianism’ when it is not used as a pejorative by liberals. While being coincident with ‘authoritarianism’, it is not a synonym for it, nor is it a synonym for ‘bad things’. The inauguration of the National Socialist state in Germany, was not the moment that ethno-nationalist world views triumphed. Rather, the inauguration of the National Socialist state was a sign and a consequence of the fact that the ethno-nationalist world view had already triumphed over liberalism among these people, and had in turn given rise to the change in the class character, ethnic composition and loyalties of the persons occupying the big tent known as the state.
This is of course the same logic that applies when talking about Fascist Italy, Right-Socialist Japan, and so on.
I am not necessarily inveighing against that phenomenon.
So with all of that said, where is the argument here? As far as I’m aware, one of the most significant disagreements is largely about the conduct of National Socialist Germany to its East. There are three elements of what happened in that region which are elements of a serious mistake that was made by Germany, a mistake which created excess risk for what—in light of the enormity of what was being fought for by Axis—was relatively little potential gain. Those elements are:
Now, any one of those reasons standing by itself, might cause someone to argue that they might be able to make it so that the benefit accrued to Germany would outweigh the cost, with respect to the larger agenda of war being conducted against the United States and against Russia.
But with all three points taken together as synergistic and inseparable as a complex system—an ecology—it becomes very clear that the conduct of Germany in Central and Eastern Europe was an inadvisable and unacceptable risk. Taking a preference for disrupting the complex systems that were the Central European nations, for the sake of ‘living-space’, rather than collaborating with the systems as they existed, produced an additional and unnecessary drag against European war-fighting capabilities, which heightened the risk of dis-integration of supply chains and thus heightened the risk of being defeated. You’ve heard of Richard III of England’s line “my kingdom for a horse!”, now try “my empire for the next shipment of ball-bearings within the appropriate time scale.”
This is the way that I look at it, it’s very much an Asian perspective that looks at the ‘big picture’, and it’s a view that I know is at odds with many of the people who criticise Majorityrights. But it is not an irrational view, and I wish that the critics would think about these issues and reflect on the errors where errors exist. I am in no way proposing that this is the sole reason for Axis difficulties in Europe at that time, but I am saying that it is a factor which certainly didn’t help the situation.
A way to the correct line
I would reiterate as well, that this is not a moralising condemnation of Germany, nor is it a moralising condemnation of those who have criticised Majorityrights. I am standing entirely apart from petty-moralist considerations and I am only talking about what I see as a matter of bad risk assessment and bad prioritisation by them when carrying out war of position and war of manoeuvre.
There are no belaboured moral statements or revisionist endorsements here, and so any liberals who are hyperventilating somewhere out there saying “isn’t this too much?”, I’d invite those liberals to take slow, deep breaths, and to not start making noises at me or overreacting.
Most of this post has been about the past, but it also has importance for the future as well, because getting the correct line on this issue of the past, allows people to also get the correct mass line for the future as well and to learn from mistakes. European ethnic-nationalists can be great if they can repair this rift between themselves, with all sides acknowledging errors where errors have occurred. It’s crucially necessary going forward, so that Europe can correctly define its borders and stand as one, as ‘Europe, whole and free’.
I’d like to also add that although the temptation for many to view it this way will be strong, this article should also not be interpreted as a ‘challenge’ issued by me to Carolyn Yeager. There will be no ‘Kumiko Oumae vs. Carolyn Yeager’ catfight-showdown at sunset with knives, so any observers having those thoughts ought to put away the popcorn, at least for now.
This is only an invitation for conversation and perhaps conflict resolution. Something that is characterised less by knives, and more by tea and biscuits. Maybe.
Kumiko Oumae works in the defence and security sector in the UK. Her opinions here are entirely her own.
Alain de Benoist
Below is the interview A. de Benoist gave recently to Boulevard Voltaire.
Q: Despite repeated promises of politicians, both from the right and the left, nothing seems to be stopping the rise in unemployment. Is it something inevitable?
A: Officially, there are 3.5 million unemployed in France, which means that the unemployment rate stands today at 10.3%. This figure, however, varies depending on how it is being computed. The official statistics take into account only the category “A”, i.e. those who are unemployed and who are actively looking for a job, while leaving out the categories “B”, “C”, “D” and “E”, i.e. those looking for a job although having had some reduced work activity as of lately; those who have stopped looking for a job but are still unemployed; those receiving training; those in traineeship; those working under “subsidized contracts”, etc. When adding together all these categories, one reaches the real unemployment rate of 21.1% (more than double the official figure). If we refer to the overall rate of the inactive population of working age, then we arrive at 35.8%. Moreover, if we were to take into account insecure, part-time, or short-term jobs, as well as the number of the “working poor”, etc., then this figure keeps getting higher.
Undoubtedly, changes in unemployment depend on the official policies—but only to some extent. Today’s unemployment is no longer of a cyclical nature, but primarily structural, something many have not fully understood yet. This means that work is becoming a scarce commodity. The jobs that have been lost are less and less being replaced by other job openings. Of course, the expansion of the service sector is real; yet the service sector does not generate capital. Moreover, twenty years down the road almost half of those service sector jobs will be replaced by networked machines. To imagine, therefore, that someday we shall return to full employment is an illusion.
A: What needs to be pointed out is that what we call “work” today has no relationship whatsoever with what used to be productive activity of the past centuries, namely a simple “metabolization” of the nature. Neither is work a synonym of activity, nor of employment. The near universal spreading of wage labor was already a revolution of sorts to which the masses remained hostile for a very long period of time. The reason for that is that they had been accustomed to the consumption of the assets of their own labor only and never viewed labor as means of acquiring the assets of others, or in other words, to work in order to purchase the results of the labor of others.
Labor has a dual dimension; it represents both concrete labor (its metabolizing purpose) and abstract labor (energy and time spent). In the capitalist system what counts is abstract labor only, because this kind of labor, being indifferent to its own content, being also equal for all goods for which it provides a basis of comparison, is the sole factor that transforms itself into money, thus acquiring a mediating role in a new form of social interdependence. This means that in a society where commodity is the basic structural category, labor ceases to be socially distributed by traditional power structures. Rather, it performs itself the function of those ancient relationships. In capitalism, labor constitutes itself the dominant form of social relationships. Its by-products (commodity, capital) represent simultaneously concrete labor products and the objectified forms of social mediation. Hence, labor ceases to be a means; it becomes an end in itself.
In capitalism value is made up of the time spent working and represents therefore the dominant form of wealth. Capital accumulation means accumulating the product of the time spent in human labor. This is why the enormous productivity gains generated by the capitalist system have not resulted in any significant decrease in working hours, as one might have expected. On the contrary, based on the trends of unlimited expansion, the system keeps imposing always more work. And it is right there that we can observe its fundamental contradictions. On the one hand capitalism seeks to extend working hours, since it is only by having people work more and more that it can achieve capital accumulation. On the other, productivity gains allow from now on the production of more and more goods with less and less men. This makes the production of material wealth more and more independent from the time spent on working. In this respect the unemployed have already become the superfluous people.
Q: You are known to be a workaholic. Do you ever miss watching the grass grow and fondle some of the cats in your household?
A: I work 80-90 hours a week simply because I like doing what I do. This does not make me an adept of the ideology of work. Quite the contrary. In theGenesis (3: 17-19) work is depicted as a consequence of the original sin. Saint Paul says: “He who does not work, neither shall he eat” (II Thessalonians3:10).This moralistic and punitive view of the work is just as alien to me as the Protestant redemptive work ethic, or for that matter the exaltation of the value of work by totalitarian regimes. Yes, I am aware of the fact that the word “travail” (work) comes from the Latin tripalium, a word which originally used to designate an instrument of torture. Therefore, I try to sacrifice to the requirements of “free time,” which is “free” insofar as it is freed from work.
Alain de Benoist is a journalist and writer who, in 1968 founded the Groupement de recherche et d’études pour la civilisation européenne, an ethnonationalist think-tank.
Jack Sen at The London Forum: