The Logic of Capitalism and Race

According to Attorney-General Eric Holder, all Americans are cowards when it comes to race. The statement springs from Holder’s view -- and Obama’s -- that white Americans are unwilling to discuss race to their Black satisfaction. We should find such a statement ironic coming from the lips of the first black attorney general serving under the first (half) black president of a nation conceived of and hacked out of the wilderness by whites still running on the fumes of white ideas and genius. More ironic is the fact that, should Americans drop their cowardice and pretence and take up an open and truly honest discussion of race, Holder and his master might find it slapping back in their faces in truly a rude fashion.

For example, they may have to answer embarrassing questions about the decline of Detroit under black domination or questions of why blacks remain well below whites in terms of success. But don’t expect those questions ever to make it into any national debate over race because the real racial cowards are blacks themselves who don’t want the focus to shift to their duplicity. Moreover, neither does the white capitalist elite who benefit from not talking about race.

Capitalism, particularly global capitalism, has replaced the traditional concept of race as individuals belonging to a long historic almost familial chain of similar people with the idea of amassing wealth and living the good life. Under capitalism, egotism trumps race awareness. One may feel subconsciously that one's race is one's family but consciously one also realizes that families are expensive and in an atomized culture that celebrates acquisition as the prime motivation of the individual.

However, a race of people is not an accidental sum of individuals. It is not a chance accumulation. It is a reunion of inheritors of a specific fraction of human history, who, on the basis of the sense of common adherence, develop the will to pursue their own history and give themselves a common destiny.

But let’s face it, babies are expensive. They are also time-consuming and damn demanding. It’s better not to have them since they get in the way of playing video games or cheering on your favorite millionaire athlete or watching Oprah. In this way capitalist societies destroy races because the individuals that populate them do not sufficiently reproduce. Simply put, races die when their members want to make money more than they want to make and rear children. The fact is a race reproduces itself or it dies. Capitalism promotes abandonment of racial awareness by emphasizing the individual’s “need” and desires. It promotes the individual as a MERE individual with no bonds and no commitments. In capitalism, consuming goods is the highest goal, it is self-fulfillment.

Capitalism promotes abandonment of racial awareness because the people at the top of this atomistic heap benefit from cheap racially alien labor either by exporting jobs to Third World hovels or importing Third World people into the nation (thus the global aspect). This upper class or managerial class tends to be of the same race as the people at the bottom whom its members are screwing, but their actions (and attitudes) mark them as individuals apart. They are concerned exclusively with the needs of their own tiny class above the needs of the rest of their own people, nation and society. These attitudes have cascaded down to the bottom as well so that all stratas are primarily concerned with their own economic well-being. Like drowning rats they fight and claw one another for a spot on the ever shrinking raft of prosperity. Unless it liberates itself from the flawed effects of this global capitalist mentality whites are doomed to further decline and death.

Common markets, currency unions, and supra-national organizations like the European Parliament are symptoms of both the attack on race and the victory of pure economics. If local loyalties and racial loyalties no longer matter, only economic efficiency is left. The Deutsche Mark, the Pound Sterling, and the traditions and sovereignties they represent can all be brushed aside if a single European currency would be more efficient.

Real ‘organic’ society or nation can only exist where people have developed a firm sense of historical and spiritual commitment to their community. In such an organic polity, the law must not derive from some abstract preconceived principles, but rather from the genius of the people and its unique historical character. In such a democracy, the sense of community must invariably preside over individualistic and economic self-interests.

Strangely, whites hand out billions of dollars every year in social services to non-whites, and pass affirmative action legislation to help them compete against whites for jobs and education. Whites promote mass Third-World immigration, and white politicians try to make immigration easier and more attractive. Whites willingly surrender whole neighborhoods to immigrants. In short, whites consider it praiseworthy to work in the interests of other races, but disreputable to work in their own.

Put directly, a left-wing sensibility pervades the managerial elite. Leftists are an aberration of nature. They have not inherited basic defence and survival mechanisms that optimise the survival of their genes. Their basic survival mechanisms are lacking, and this could well explain why liberals and Leftists generally consider it a matter of individual ‘choice’ regarding such issues as abortion, and “gay marriage” e.g., rather than as a matter for the entire social organism, reflecting its chances of genetic continuity. The Leftist has an overly rationalised response to his environment that is detached from instinct. It might be said that the liberal is an aberration of nature, a revolt against his own self as an organism, an aberration bereft of the will to genetic perpetuity; that liberalism (and its variants of communism and feminism) literally means DEATH.

Obama a Fascist?

As many have pointed out, the frenzy Barack Obama produced in his followers during the 2008 presidential campaign is quite reminiscent of the reaction to men like Benito Mussolini, Adolph Hitler, Corneliu Codreanu, Leon Degrelle and Primo de Rivera. Interestingly, all of those men were fascists or National Socialists. His cult of personality is genuine and widespread, particularly among the media elites. With that in mind, can we see any ideological parallels between Obama and the ideas of those icons of the 1930s?

After more than 100 days in office there can be no question that Obama favors state control and management of the economy. Americans (foolishly) shy away from the term socialism, but any honest person who has studied the American president’s words and deeds would have to admit that Obama is a socialist. But there is a deeper quality to Obama’s socialism that comes in contact with the very ideas and work that characterized Mussolini, Hitler, Codreanu, Degrelle and Rivera. His approach in solving the economic crisis has been classically fascist in that he has sought to bring business, labor and the state together to work the solution out in triad. Though heavy on state power, the method is, nonetheless, Synarchistic corporativism in every way.

At this point, the Democratic Party stands alone as the master of the state. The Republicans have been vanquished and are not likely to rebound to challenge them for control. This could mean the establishment of a one-party state, particularly after eight years of Obama pulling more and more of the American economy under his umbrella. The more that happens the less likely those who run business will be to back Republicans particularly when they can be punished for doing so.

For almost a century, the Democrats have gradually been developing a large client base that is beholding to the state. A veteran of the rough and tumble world of Chicago politics, Obama knows how to fed the carrot and bash with the stick. This is the kind of raw fascism that Mussolini used to ascend and take power in Italy and he did it with fewer resources than Obama has within his grasp.

Moreover, Obama’s fascist soul is reflected in the words of his wife, Michelle:
“Obama will require you to work. He is going to demand that you shed your cynicism. That you put down your divisions. That you come out of your isolation, that you move out of your comfort zones. That you push yourselves to be better. And that you engage. Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”

Mussolini could not have crafted a better creed. More interestingly, during that fateful campaign, supporters decided that Obama needed his own “salute.”

“Our goal,” said Rick Husong, a key financial backer of Obama, “is to see a crowd of 75,000 people at Obama’s nomination speech holding their hands above their heads, fingers laced together in support of a new direction for this country, a renewed hope, and acceptance of responsibility for our future. We thought, 'Let's try and start a movement where even while walking down the street, people would hold up the O and you would know that they were for Obama.”

An ad agency came up with what the Obamaites hoped would serve as a symbol of hope and progress that also plays off Obama's name. The salute called for loyalists to interlace their hands in a circle, as a symbol of different types of people coming together. The circle would also serve as a symbol of unity. Husong urged people to download it and print it on posters and T-shirts. “We want to see it everywhere, but more importantly we want this sign to take the world by storm.”

Italian Fascism and the Syndicalist connection

One of the key features in the development of Italian Fascism was the ideological inspiration it drew from Syndicalism. After World War I Fascism became the rightful heir to the movement that operated on the left wing of Italy’s Socialist Party. Many of Syndicalism’s ideological shapers and leaders became prominent fascists, deeply influencing Benito Mussolini. By mixing in other ideas – Synarchism, Technocracy, Futurism and militarism – modern fascism took form.

Georges Sorel was the most influential theoretician of Syndicalism in France at the time. His revision of Marx led Sorel towards a new conception of revolution that set him against the Marxist model. Direct action, violence and the social myth of mobilisation were all concepts that the Italian syndicalists borrowed from Sorel. It was around these concepts that a new brand of active, nationalist-oriented and elite Socialism was to be defined by Arturo Labriola, Enrico Leone and their intellectual followers. Sorel’s contribution to Italian Syndicalism is extremely important because the Italian theoreticians contributed to the revision of Marx by attempting to integrate economic marginalism with Marx’s theory of value. This revision brought an ideological change, which, coupled with Sorel’s influence, shifted Italian Syndicalism away from its Marxist origins producing, in the wake of World War I, a whole new concept of socialism, a national socialism with a nationalistic vision.

Deep doubts about Marx’s predictions of revolution flaming out of capitalism’s cyclical and deepening crises moved many socialists to shift their views. Organized labor was able to obtain direct benefits for the working class through negotiations. The political system adapted to this situation by legitimising the presence and activities of socialist parties, within the liberal democratic framework.

However, any idea of compromise with capitalism within the framework of a liberal parliamentary democracy was out of the question. Looking for a new way to the socialist uprising, these heretics found their way to Syndicalism, absorbing much of Sorel’s influence in the process. In Avenir socialiste des syndicats Sorel expressed the need to concentrate on the renovating forces of society in the syndicate, where a new elite should be educated morally and technically to be able to take over the production process from an already decadent bourgeoisie. In the next stage, in the Reflexions sur la violence, violence is seen as the renovating force in history and as the way to bring the masses into action.

Sorel centered his analysis on the concept of violence transformed into “direct action” exercised by a revolutionary elite. The recruitment of the forces of change should be made through the marshaling myth of the revolutionary general strike. With this in mind, the syndicalist intellectuals attacked the political attitudes of the Socialist Party and proposed to place revolutionary actions directly in the economic arena, in the field of production. Since the workers’ lives took place between the factory and the syndicate, socialist political theory had to be constructed around these two dimensions of proletarian reality. The factory represented actuality, the place where the production process took place. The syndicate represented the future, the place where the workers were to be morally and technically educated in order to be able to take over the direction of the production process from the capitalists. Syndicalism wanted to eliminate from the production process any kind of hierarchy that was not absolutely necessary for its technical improvement. The result would be a society organized solely on the basis of the fulfilment of economic needs, on consensual ties and on the technical discipline of production.

“The crisis of theoretic Socialism, as already stated, became unavoidable, due to the chasm between the old Marxist forms and the latest developments of economic science,” Arturo Labriola noted. “To fill this gap was the task of the actual movement of ideas directed to solve the crisis.” The Marxist economic analysis was seen by Labriola and Leone as obsolete. This line of economic thought had been preceded in Italy by the theories of Achille Loria. Benedetto Croce had also recognized the scientific value of syndicalism. From his point of view, Marxist economics completed the picture by providing an analysis of the sociological side of capital profit. Although both Labriola, Croce and other thinkers who worked on the revision of Marx provided a good opening, from the dominant socialist point of view, it was incomplete and unsatisfactory thus opening a (new) rift in the socialist bloc. The mainstream of the Italian Socialist Party was seen by the syndicalist wing as too willing to compromise with the state, on the basis of the acceptance of the principles of parliamentary liberal democracy by the socialist side, and the granting of all kinds of benefits to it by the liberal system. The benefits of such policies held up only as long as the economy flourished.

As a result, syndicalism became marginal within the socialist ranks, particularly within the ranks of the Italian Socialist Party. The second generation of syndicalist leaders and thinkers, men like Panunzio, Orano, Olivetti, Lanzillo, Bianchi and Rossoni, who started their political careers as revolutionary syndicalist socialists finished as fascists. Their political education, which included the revision of Marx along with Sorel’s doctrines, provided the grounds for their socialism. They became anti-Marxist, elitist and action-oriented. Their revolution was to be ethical, requiring higher moral values such as heroism and social altruism, and the will to fight and conquer. This new kind of socialism found a common language with Radical Nationalism that expanded greatly with Italy’s entry into World War I. for these Italian syndicalists, the nation had replaced the social class as the subject of history. It was National Syndicalism that gave fascism its first political program and a sound ideological underpinning.