False Gods

By: Jonathan Seidel

Part 2: master morality as the inventor of ethical conduct promoting exclusivity and  feeding off of fated superiority on the basis of divine right or generational identity 

Nietzsche’s master morality is impacted by this individualistic strength to power. Yet the master is the aristocratic dynasty that seeks to reinforce stereotypical attitudes. 

Slave morality creates morality attempting to bridge the true good and evil in order to urge the master into submission. The master is forced to submit and then entertain the fabricated socially constructed ethical chamber. Yet this archetypical attitude maintains that the master is somehow a freely nice guy who is trying to assert himself in the world. The master at times is a successful investor but many a time is a product of privileged assets that place him a top the food chain without doing anything. There are cases of social climbing and doing the work but many other times it’s lending heritage to brand ones destiny. The first master does cultivate his order. Yet his sons do not. They just follow his footsteps. If anything they are solely provided such access for being born without any effort. They can be bums all they want and yet still honoured for their name. 

Social structures have existed since Mesopotamia and Egypt. Literacy was a model of extensive nobility. Genetics played a role for the pioneers but once their place was cemented in the upper class their children had the same affordability. The parent could teach the children and keep them noble. Literacy had a major impact on wealth which was also constituted generationally. While certain groups were able to achieve harmony in social division, later groups weren’t able to. Egyptians could, Greeks could not. It wasn’t so much an invention insofar as historical division divided people. Class became a statement of placement in society. Greed and envy plagued societal norms. The caste system in Egypt was not as derisive as it became as monarchs grew power hungry and nobility maintained their leash. Genetics and connections afforded one a better status in ancient society. The more talented the higher up on the totem poll but little instability in between.

The master’s didn’t make a name for themselves they were able to do something others weren’t. For all subsequent generations it was a name or branding that enabled noble presence. A connection of sorts that assisted without having to do much. Many of the master’s had little will to power. It was birth to power. Deserved by divine right or parental honour. By what means is that deserving. Nothing was done except be born. To boss around by virtue of bumming around is truly a horrid case of self actualisation. It is an immature irritating dubious selection. Luck benefited not skill or passion. Nobles flex their might when reality they have no skill. They did little to deserve the place they are. Their grandad may have been a war hero but they are nothing but buffoons feeding off legacy. Tarnishing that legacy but utilising for personal gain with little earnings. Nobles of all generations are a descendent of a true warrior or a lucky victor. 

Nobles create their morals but those morals do not concern expressions but concern identity. The noble model is to be amoral and superior. To do whatever one pleases. It is only wrong if the peasant does it. Rules that govern status are those apply generationally. Respect is warranted by virtue of brith. A dubious metric of veracity and yet a historical assessment. Delegitimising all those who aren’t nobles. The master of luck became a noble and then his descendants branded the name to keep their power. They have no virtue nor skill but still positionally at the top. It is in their exclusionary detail. They live in their ivory towers and gated communities. Only certain folk can enter and dialogue with them. There is illegality against measuring up to a noble. They placed normative manners under arrest to maintain their hierarchy. Afraid of losing their might, they are dysfunctional and deeply untalented. The master’s create an ethic to ensure they are kept on top. Making dubious divine rite and generational names to give themselves the edge. Not from this family such a bum. Bums can never be royalty. Stay in your lane peasant. If your father was a peasant then you are one. That is just the way the world works.

Sounds quite phobic. They wish to maintain the hierarchy because they would falter without the ingrained aid. They are the true bums but make excuses like their daddy was a war hero. Yeah but they are not and do not deserve that prestige. They are lucky oddballs who win the jackpot and then run around praising themselves of their accomplishments. They dictate all these rules to ensure that their group remains exclusive. If it were opened to the public others would jump right in. The second generation are nowhere near the first. Taking their riches for granted. The peasant seeks equal opportunity but the noble won’t allow. If they were put in the same course with the same variables the noble would get smoked. His little passion and motivation is a mark of an oppressive noble. Nobles held on to their power lest the peasantry partake in more affairs. Their power depleted and their influence in ruin. The master morality clause is a fearful gesture to keep wealthy folk in charge not out of any goodness but because the impoverished would seek to level the playing field. Nobles are rotten maniacs. Easily destroyed in a fair trial. 

It becomes a sentiment of identity politics. Part of the privileged house presents superior resources. The fated existence is a miracle in of itself. Gifted presents for existing while others toil to earn their place in life. A parent wishes to leave a legacy but that does not mean that the children are deserving nor mock others for their uncontrollable circumstances. The only thing true is whether a part of the pack. There is no good or evil as such categories are defined under a categorical imperative. A category given by a higher deity or universe. A world where everyone is held to the same standard. Action is judged not appearance. A MLK like speech of sorts. Content not colour. Ethics is drawn with all under the same code but the imbalance accorded from class difference places people on different levels with varied ethical approaches. In a way there is moral relativism designated by social class. The role of good and evil is to balance all under one class. the universe sets a moral standard and everyone complies. Yet this only operates in a shared experience. Those who do not buy into it reject with their own autonomous ethical framework which may be categorised by the moral absolutism of equalisers. All are held to the same standard of belief.

The nobility do not adhere to this equality or a universal order. While they may believe in a deity they see themselves as superior. Blessed to rule in his place. These gifts are appearance not action. Good and bad are relative to them depending on who is targeted. A noble targeting a royal is bad but targeting a peasant is good. Though the US court system may be a better parallel as guilty for hitting a royal but not guilty for hitting a peasant. The noble is not innocent but there are no repercussions. So it’s not good but not bad. Hitting itself is an action that erases the innocence but accountability is based on the result. To an extent there are moral imperatives in the biological interest. Robbery could be said to be wrong but who is being robbed is debatably a farce. In this case attacking a noble in ancient society versus today. Hitting the noble would have way worse consequences due to the class difference. Death could be afforded while today it may be a fine. Hitting is wrong but the punishment would equal to damage not based on posture. The reverse is also true, while hitting a peasant would not have costed anything now it would. While slaves had quite different ethical barriers, peasants were not owned and were members of the state. 

Peasants worked for the nobles. The nobles had land and the peasants worked that land. While there was a rule of law that grounded the society it was far from equal in nature. While law was intended to usher in a cohesive society, many a time it was weaponised to maintain a hefty power over the poor. A classic modern example would be Jim Crowe. Law was by design an orderly form of society that could be manipulated for better or for worse. Ethics imposed in the law were distorted to aid nobles. This by no means meant that nobles could go around murdering peasants but it does mean that there was an imbalance of ethical relation. Hitting an employer today or hitting an employee is the same crime, though other reasons may hinge on the settlement. The law is theoretically equal. The same cannot be said of the old systems. Especially when the differences were less about wealth and more about status. Even in the ancient democracies what clouded their fairness was the classist appearance. Today wealth is the barometer of status which though is not easy to attain is attainable, status cannot.  

It is the truth of status that bears resemblance in the seats of authority. Ethics were deranged to the master. For example homosexuality was permissible between class folk but not in between systems. You could fuck straight but you could not fuck up. Christianity dubbed it a sin for all and democracy liberated it for all. This does not mean that the latter groups were perfect but under the law there was equality even if social progress was still falling short. An equal erected foundation was the the floor to the ceiling. Propping up divine rite did not settle with many either which was the purpose of democracy and communism. To do away with some elitist status from brith. Either status was attained or status was irrelevant. Truth and falsehood were the only genuine metrics for the nobles. Good and evil were alter adoptions for everyone. Exceptions remain but good and evil applied to everyone on the same horizontal axis while truth and falsehood operated on a divergent vertical axis. A false noble just as a false prophet was attempting to mount status over others. Only those born on fate’s good side were worthy of reigning. Vertical relation enabled inconsistent responsibility to different individuals. Only those with the same status were worthy of good and others were of evil. 

Nietzsche’s master model is inadequate. The aristocrats for most time did not demonstrate any transformation. They pissed in their legacy by maintaining a hierarchy by virtue of birth. Legacy was everything even when the recipient had nothing to show for it. The peasants wished for transformation. Hell, the slave wished for transformation. Yet the master forbade. They designed a system that preyed on the weak. The weak did not choose to be weak they were designated as weak. Mythology cooked up a a lie about superior status. Others bought in to this ensuring the weak could not handle their own. Thus peasant children were unable to fight back at the disadvantage that fared throughout the generations. While it’s possible the first peasants are responsible for their feeble genetics, it is of little accountability to the peasant descendants under the legal hegemony of the nobles. Power was in ideological hold and illiteracy. Peasants didn’t have weapons nor ideas how to accord the revolution. While there may have been a leader that did not necessitate to all. The danger to themselves and their families was too much to bear with uncertain outcomes. Status was accepted and even when pushed back there was little resources to overpower the master. The master held onto the power he received from his father who got it from his father. Lucky suckers.

Slave morality is rather crude in its archetypical format but is insidiously ironic in coercive insecurity. The slave wishes to escape and establish his new egalitarian model while the master wishes to maintain his top-dog status and secure his elitist ranking. The law is the remnant of stature that keeps him a top. It isn’t as if there is some strength competition that realises such superiority. The leader is part of a dynastic legacy. A loser made leader by virtue of his ancestry. The law permits this reality. He is a slave to the system that makes him elite. If the slaves rebelled or infighting overturned the regime, they would be at the bottom of the totem poll. The law is their greatest ally. Their model only works with the law on their side. Their ethical inequity is based in their legal model. Had they been in the jungle they would be eaten alive. They construct a menacing reality for the slave so he does not rebel. Weakening his morale and psychologically depleting his aspirations to maintain control. Manipulation is the victorious strategy. The amount of effort designated for the master to ensure he remains on top is sadly entertained to assist the slow idiot catch up with the slaves. They do not posses anything other than a brand that sells in the legal order that has transpired. The slave is displaced and demoted to forbid his escalation. Weaponising the law to ensure captivity. 

Even when the slave burst forth and attempted a new edenic society he became the master. Nobles reemerged in religion and wealth format. The political chain did not aid the bottomless pit. The peasants still suffered under the new nobles. New hierarchies and dynastic metaphysics breeched the grain of egalitarian solidarity. Each ensuing egalitarian hope fostered on identity levels. Status was lost in the fated art but could be earned. Destiny could be rewritten. Yet while this on the surface was incredibly novel, the individualistic amoral market helped a few and harmed more. A society hellbent on rising and falling. Status was achieved by those with resources. Some have climbed up high but many were able to due to status. The founding fathers with the exception of Hamilton’s wit were previously wealthy individuals. Noble crusaders but connectors and upper class-men. Many successes are aided by connections throughout the upper and middle class. Identity is not supposed to play a part but biases are prevalent. Even beyond the status, related or a wealthy friend can educate and provide opportunities not given elsewhere. It is a part of life but status does mean something even if earned. Money over branding has won the day but then again names do mean something. Masters can prop up nobodies to become masters who do that to others. Some can defeat the system but it would be difficult to deny the generational fated existence that still suppresses the poor to rise.

Masters are a product of luck and chance. They then use their prestige gifted from others as a tool to oppress others. They may have even been friends with a poor crowd but now prestigious can never dare walk in those circles. Wealth does buy material and thus presents itself as a superior class with privileges not supplied to others. There are a few trailblazers but the myth of the American dream is that everyone works hard to get where they are. Even many immigrants had a connection or aid that bettered their chances. There are those working hard folk who defied the odds but there are many who given opportunities that place them above the rest and then look down at those who failed as if equal opportunity is a reality. They have schooling so they should succeed but what if their schooling is inferior due to their funding or professional desire to teach in that area. What about their tough communities, an obstacle more affluent did not need to overcome or tutors given handedly to those capable of hiring. There is an imbalance whereby some begin way ahead of the pack by virtue of mooching off the fated existence they were given. Such an archetypical attitude is of the lowest percentile. There are success cases but there are so many variables that invalidate the meta-narrative. 

The Knights of the Communist Table

By: Jonathan Seidel

Marxism as neo-medieval communal identity    

Marxism saw the danger of capitalism. The Renaissance’s wealth and individualism disembarked from communal societal relations. No longer was a figure someone a cog in a wheel but solo to do his own thing. To choose to help or not. While, this may sound better, it lacks the communal element. Everyone belonged to a class and a community. It was all in hope of the human furtherance. Marxism planned on reviving the communal element under a new guise. A new order without class. 

Marxism attempted to revive the communal identity lost by the emerging capitalist society. The collectivist class struggle would be a revolutionary pull toward a new destiny. A new marker of identity. One of shared history and memory. A goal away from the the interlocked suffering from the poor. A top-down approach unifying the diverse factions. The classes now united under one  scheme. A political machine ensuring human equity. The oppressor is removed and the oppressed are saved. Now equal under the political machine, they share a common identity. Removed from the classist differential is now a united front. Everyone is horizontally sitting instead of vertically climbing. On the same level places all in the same camp. The significant partition of class struggle for utopian synthesis is edenic. 

Marxism advocated for revolution. In order to fulfil the equity goals, a rebellion was necessary. If people wanted more power, they had to fight for it. No one was going to willingly concede power. The wealthy were not going to kindly give their money. As charitable as they may be, it was insufficient. The rich maintained their status and fostered their own circle. Their exclusivity would not be denied. Their money was their acceptance into the club. Their superiority rested in their wealth. Their unwillingness needs reciprocation. The lower classes need to push back. They need to overwhelm the rich enemy. By overshadowing the capitalist mind, they can endure with a better future. It is upending the system for a novel model ensuring salvation. The capitalist mechanical system cannot be salvaged. Human greed mitigates the potential equity. 

Marxism topples the greedy aristocracy. The social value must be rejuvenated in the face of social isolation. Ironically, there is a socialisation amongst the rich. These wealthy individuals are corporate executives celebrities and politicians. The best and most notorious example I can think of is Epstein’s Island which has failed to be disclosed. The likes of Bill Clinton, Prince Andrew, Bill Gates and Alan Dershowitz were spotted there among other notable individuals. Point being that a group of elites were present at a human trafficking ring. Even worse was covering up and participating in the inhumane travesty. Another example was the Met Gala party which was attended by these elites not following covid policies they ordered. While this demonstrates complete lack of responsibility and corruption, it also denotes a collectivist supremacy. The aristocracy has not been expunged it has only persisted but expanded to include a wider diversity. It no longer is sole lineage and dynastic but it holds to the same exclusivism. It is as if the aristocrats of old realised in order to compete with the enduring liberalism they had to be a little more forthcoming and open to new club members. 

Marxism bemoans elites. Dreads the seniority of some arrogant narcissistic group of belittling trolls. The elite live in their own ivory towers by their own rules. They set standards for others that they do not follow. They cater to a community that requires access. Access through wealth and prestige. Everyone wishes to be a part of that club. They engender a methodology that all should follow. They manipulate society to follow what they deem worthwhile. I do not think they themselves invented these ideas ex nihilo but instead follow a pattern from earlier generations with a modern twist. The top-down educational model blue pilled and red pilled to society is dually similar. Both aspire for the elitist class in divergent directions. The elites wish to retain their power and experiment with distinct political directions of expanding or restricting that circle. It is a ploy for supremacy. While they maintain their socialisation everyone else is fending for themselves. The goal is to reach their pool and enter into the hall of acceptance. Validation is immanent to enter. They scrupulously fostered an inner circle that bested the individualisation. Many of the names mentioned above are from different backgrounds and different sectors united while neighbourhoods are riddled with disinterest. 

Marxism seeks salvation. The diversified lower classes must band together. They must cease the shallow endeavour of arriving at the some celestial stadium amongst the top. The lower status are king for a piece of the top. They wish for comfort. They wish for serenity. Yet they are existentially lonely. They do realise that they need only to look around. Instead of besting one another, they work together. How much more good if they break off the yoke of elitism. How much more powerful they can be. Instead of confirming to a hierarchy they should dismantle it. They must see past the illusion staring them in the face. They must quash the slavish impropriety keeping them subservient to a higher order. It is political slavery. Indebted to a system that sways by the whims of a powerful few. In Nietzschean fashion it is slave mortality. The top must compel the bottom to follow their lead, if not directly controlling them. The secret cabal dangles the rest of society on a leash. Again they are not necessarily placing themes in motion aimlessly but continuing a long traditional line of fame and fortune. The supremacy of status is embroiled on the television sets boasting of their entourage. Making the weak and needy jealous.   

Marxism musters a whisper to the fixated eyes on gold so far away. The problem is the extent to which they go. Two recent revolutionaries: Malcolm X and Meir Kahane embody these ideals. Both these men saw the dangers of society as it targeted their brethren. Beaten and soaked in blood of their perpetrators. The solution was retaliation. Fight fire with fire; violence with violence. Do onto others what they do onto you. The only way to repel the instigator, the oppressor was to fight back. Yet this violence was perceived as unjust in nation’s light due to its one sided attackers. Minority discrimination was permitted but not vice versa. Persistent protest and speaking to people’s ethical impulse to fight for a worthy cause. See the suffering and cease it at once. MLK’s wide success is from his temperament and national inspiration (though his martyring may have bolstered his prestige). MLK’s unifying messaging was not a mechanical update but a valuational shift. While the abolitionists fought a violent revolution. MLK fought a civil revolution. His ability to resist the violent temptation hearkens to Rickey’s famous quote to Jackie, to have the guts to not fight back. Honour pride and restraint to stand tall to the enemy. To stare death in the face and hold back with such cathartic fierceness.   

Marxism needs resilient rebels. Those cynical of the present version of society and wishing for a new future. Unlike the overarching alterations made in historical revolutions, the rebel shouts out to the despaired. Inspires the waters laying the abyss to rise again. A festering inspiration of Bruce Wayne to climb the tower from hell. Willing to cede the rope and jump freely, all on the line in brute honesty. To climb out of hell to save Gotham. Society is not doomed as long as there is hope in its salvation. As long as there are those wishing to make changes. As one Bruce Wayne they will fail. They need a group. Yet not an out of control animal. A leader will take charge to hype the group and provide direction but the group must stand tall beside the leader, not behind him. The past saw soldiers as inferior to their king. They stood behind the king’s command. Today commanders give orders far away from the battlefield. In both cases the leader is superior. At least in old the leader led the charge. A leader, a charismatic up stander is inevitable but it is those who surround him in kind seeing themselves all as equals with a collective mission to succeed. The rebels in their existential alienation find one another to soothe the loneliness. They become a Wolfpack looking out for one another. Each wolf is instrumental to the pack and gives his share to the overall team.  

Marxism motions familial longing with serene purity. Preaching for a bottom-up resistance cultivates concerned voices to unite. Neighbourhoods rally around one another. Today this occurs following tragedies such as the George Floyd gruesome murder bringing communities together to tackle a major issue of public safety. Yet the unification succeeding a travesty is a common trope in the human psyche. A conservative flare to stick together brightens in the shadow of evil. Standing hand in hand to protest the wrongdoing and its future application. Social media has powered the global web to synchronise like never before. Ever greater than the 1968 world-wide protests. The web is one way but we need to stop standing behind computers hash-tagging on twitter and take to the streets. Climate change activity must be persistent. It must touch the hearts of all. Any given issue has ten or so percent on each extreme and eighty in the middle who are indifferent. The failure of the eighty percent necessitates talking to the other extreme but this is not always a winning cause. Gaining momentum in the eighty by speaking to their hearts is necessary. A communal identity must gradually advance. Change is evolutionary. It needs time despite the the grand wishes of the advocates. It is a slow insufferable inclining trajectory.   

Marxism protesting hinges on systematic and organic development. While the current frame is unheeded due to its profit-less endeavour. Shouting and screaming of world destruction by ceasing coal and fracking raising unemployment and halting mobility is not a resonating message. Well intentioned but implausibly ethically dominant with no pragmatic concern. The young moralists are visionaries without any viable plan. The revolutionary paradigm seeks to upend the model for a clean slate with a new methodology. Yet it may be more efficient to wean people off of profit goals and gradually oscillate toward a class-less society. Fast changes do not automatically alter the human conscious nor values. If these young moralists put their change in affect on an isolated plane it would fail due to their extreme commitment or people would cheat and fall back to old values of profit wielding individuals. The communal conscious is made aware of the situation, the rebels persist and they speak the profit language. Young moralists are not in the power seats yet. They need to wait their turn. Change from where you can. Investing in profit related electric energy to promote proper changes benefiting the world. The driven advocates need to be aware of their actions. Angering countrymen for destroying their jobs at their expense of your messianic complex is not unifying nor is beneficial.                  

     

Marxism needs allies. While greedy politicians and corporations may be looking for profit incentivised alternatives, the average individual in hick town Kentucky is not. Most people are trying to live day to day. While the ultimate goal of reaching the millions is an aspiration, people are just trying to provide. The millions march has individualised all to fend for themselves. Liberation has a cost but it isolates from communal aid. Influencing these folk or even the average Jersey accountant is not so simple. Missionaries is the wrong track. Make noise and raise a collectivist resonating message. A modern MLK speech.  MLK’s speeches did not end racism but it forwarded a movement to bridge that gap. It saw the grouping of Americans. Blacks and whites were both humans and illustrated a future hand in hand. The same goes for the young moralists. Pick an issue and run with it. Trying to cripple babel from its highest peak needs an assassination which without installing an ally would be ineffective. Even with this ally in power. Dotting with his new novelties is tyrannical. It is too quick sharp and oppressive. Start with plastic bags and then move on to recycling to planting trees. This minor inconvenience though a pain in the butt can be acquiesced. Allies are those who take on endeavours gradually without attempting to convert to a small extremist faction hellbent on overturning their current lives. People like to help and if it is easy enough with no hard feelings things can change. 

Marxism is fuelled by its charismatic voices. It cannot be a sole preacher but a group mindset. Chapters traversing the land. A communal identity that does not factionalise into the political landscape turning people off. It needs to be universal and welcoming. A warm embrace with a hug nudging inside. Camaraderie is born of a collectivist mission hoping for an inspiring future. A commendable goal of sacred origin. Its universalism speaks to its humanitarian hold. A beauty breeching the canonicity of the modern lens. The perceptive voices range to all sectors of humanity. The elderly recall the atrocities of Stalinist Russia and Maoist China. The Orwellian voice was not phobic but it has culminated in a deranged psychosis. Its message is clear but its target shifted. It isn’t the communists but any governmental overlord that many elderly liberals and conservatives continue to vote into office. They are so engulfed in its 20th century propaganda, they fail to see its contemporary relevance. The real evil is staring them straight in the face. Both the left and the right argue about social issues not economic ones. They are capitalists but will “communise” in their aristocratic hegemony. People are stuck in their ways and altering the propaganda so embedded in the elderly folk’s mind is implausible. The young moralists argument is change this second but the brainwashed adulthood cannot reciprocate. Flashed with phobic disaster they remain in the matrix. 

Marxism dangles by a thread in the mind of these advocates. There are have been debates about the left eating itself. The Youtube algorithm brings one to Ben Shapiro destroys college snowflake or Jordan Peterson destroys college liberal. These snowflake leftists boycott conservative speakers or prevent diversity in their own oppressive attempt. They use hyper racial terminology and rampant trigger warning outrage. Whether or not this is “left” is perceived as such. They may be Trojan horses, social climbing schizophrenics but the outer ring sees them promoting left wing politics and brands them the left. Yet statistically left identifiers wish to silence opposing views and issuing referendums when results don’t meet their mark. Their anti-enlightenment ideology is not classically left but its contemporary left. In this vein, the social identification has polarised in tribalistic maturity. These groups were formed in defence of their beliefs and thus armed to protect. The young activists are building a group ex nihilo but their inexperience is transforming a well-intentioned group into a tyrannical oppressor. A group identity is reviving but dangerously at the expense of others. While many may detest the childish emotional outbursts, the numbers do validate their messaging. 

Marxism must avoid totalitarian bad actors. These contemporary peace seekers are Orwellian. They are revolutionaries who seek to overthrow the current tide with repressive ideas. The scary aspect is that they will soon be in charge. They do not identify with the classic liberal nor do they identify with classic marxism. Their goal is to suppress others to ensure their visions. While left is not marxist it finds much similarities with the latter’s vision. The university left is not the left of the anti-Veitnam hippies; they are not the same students nor in the same situation. Ironically both leftists movements were student driven. This is not at all shocking. The young born into such a generation hope for social change seeing the failures of the older generation. They are aspirers and hopeful. Contemporary leftism must revamp itself. Unlike its predecessor overshadowed by war protests and maoist tendencies did not transition to the political sphere. Yet their influence did carry for feminists and homosexuals. In order to avoid eating itself as the SDS did back when, it must align itself with proper conduct. Their authoritarian agenda is dangerous. It may not be classically Neo-marxist but it is becoming its own agenda in a stalinist format. 

Marxism must not eat itself. Those advocating for the methodical strictures have to yield to debate. The bad actors will be televised and championed as the conductors of the movements. The Neo-marxist victory will not be in revolution but in rebellion. The young moralists are the on the right track but they are too anxious and agitated. Too inexperienced and impatient. They have much to give and shall pursue their agenda but do so earnestly. Their protest must be shared and broadened. University professors must open the forum to fight for values but in an orderly fashion. To match progressivism with conservatism. Change must be evolutionary not revolutionary. Neo-marxist advocates are making waves. Bernie Sanders ran a near successful presidential campaign. Albany has a socialist congressional representative. Gradual change will make it. As long as young voices do not give up as they mature, alterations will be marked. At first their youth will be their weakness preyed upon as false prophets but in time their tenacious voice will epitomise the prophetic call of old. The university hype will persist if people hold true to their convictions. Even silver-spooned youngsters are pulled into the mainstream swing of things. The peer pressure is a powerful string and can “coerce” and/or inspire more socialistic send-offs. As long as the rich ignore the pleas or reluctantly abrasively endow charity, there is not much hope. Those with the resources must overcome their moral lapse that rationally deduces predestined superiority. As long as the embedded propaganda machine is not overturned, there can be little hope. 

Marxism is at a severe disadvantage. Both parties promote capitalist agendas. While Europe is less capitalist heavy, its social welfare does not gravitate to the Neo-marxists’ vision. Continental Europe has promoted a welfare state that covers much of civic life but at the expense of tremendous taxes. The power of socialised policies have gained greater traction due to the lack of substantial offensive communist horror. Yet considerable frequenting socialism with communist atrocities harms polling. They have become the scapegoat of the capitalist. Continental Europe’s reliance on American capital puts them at odds with much of their native agendas. Building coalitions and attempting to bridge the gap is difficult. Europe has made greater strides than the US, it is still its youth that will engender a hopeful picture. America is way behind and will remain that way without youthful execution. The EU is a market economy. Although it has advanced social programs there is still a gap between the wealthy and the poor. Germany is seen as the scion of the the hybrid model (un-ironically its history of liberal agendas). Even in Germany, inequality remains very high and has increased in the past twenty years. This all to say that despite their vast improvements there is still a ways to go. 

Marxism is a universalist paradigm but a nationalistic forum. Recently, there has been a Neo-nationalist revival. In some ways reigniting extremist groups but also recognising the failures of globalisation. The dream of universalising democracy and spreading capitalism in a universal market did not breed the equality envisioned. It built winners and losers. Many corporations moved overseas leaving their old national workers unemployed. China began shipping low cost items made by child labourers in dangerously infected facilities. The promises made did not pan out. Globalisation was not a total failure but it further erased identity. It took away a tribal identity hinged to a hometown, a patriotism for one’s own kin. Instead of aiding one’s own community, we are allocating millions of dollars to starving children in Africa. This is a pure intentioned effort but it forgets the stragglers in the community. San Francisco is home to the largest homeless rate. We become more concerned with media motivated cinema than our bulldozed buck heavy backyard. The world is indebted to Africa for its imperialistic tragedies but that is a national issue not an individual issue. The difference in magnitude does not necessitate certain aid. A selfishness to one’s own kin must be priority to ensure that more people can collectively aid struggling Africans. A particularism that yields respect to its own in order for its own to aid others. 

Marxism begins internally before professed externally. A universal ideal has its genus in nationalistic fortitude. Communist Russia was the ideal Russia. Everyone was Russian but in its liberal promotion its sought to erase all other identities. One was only Russian not Jewish Christian or other. An Orwellian scare of great liberal leaps with immense censorship. An equal but an imprisoned society. Eventually morphing into its totalitarian construct that silenced diversity and punished perpetrators. Russia was to be protected. Anyone doing anything that mocked it would have to answer for it. A scary theme penetrating leftist discourse on campuses. On the other, side democracy preaches natural rights. Everyone is imbued factual evident essences. An existentialist paradigm placing one’s individuality before their belonging. Unfortunately, the democratic capitalist has sought his own destiny at the expense of his fellow countrymen. A freedom to act as he wishes liberated from any social obligation and affiliation. Loyalty and fidelity once prioritised at the hierarchy of values are muddled by egocentric aspirations. The global vision with its profiteering has decimated these ties and cut these strings. Start small and then make a big splash. Only with gradual improvement will change immanently occur. Duties and responsibilities are the centre of human identity. This intuitive collectivist value must remerge in unison not bilaterally in opposite corners. It’s not Frazier versus Ali but a patriotism of unified result.    

Marxism prevails in democratic values by unifying the stifled masses. Enlightenment ideas were relevant to stabilise the individualisation of society and appropriation of the business class. Nations and even the international machine is at the aristocrats’ mercy. It is up to the aristocrats to submit themselves. For their humility to shine brighter than the green slips of paper in their pockets. Neo-marxism must counter with innate connections to familial longing and correct guidance. Debate and discussion are imperative aspects. Change is necessary but gradual. The dialectic will never be entirely synthesised. It will perpetually oscillate and require cathartic heroism to resist a revolutionary revolt. A universal consciousness embroils the fashioned agenda. It’s a humanitarian effort but it must pass from theory to practice. It must begin to announce itself beyond governmental programs. Drawing tangents to compensate for the inequality is a far cry from solving the impending dilemma. The government nor the rear faction can topple the capitalist. Only the annoying persistent rebel. The shoulder judgement inches closer to favourable dissent. Modifications  incrementally reshape the societal picture. The moral outcry is to be ideologically internalised into a fervent antidote rather than a rampant cancer. A communal enterprise, a collective vision, a tribal hankering.

Marxism facilitates the libertarian formula in opposing the authoritarian capitalist. The urban ivory towers place a delegating distance between the worker and the owner between the citizen and the politician. The resource holders monopolise swearing on their mother’s grave they will provide service to those seeking. Even with employment options, the worker is at a disadvantage. He is in debt to the capitalist who holds all the cards. Unions have tried to regulate and excelled in part but still struggle. The citizen is stuck in the same rut. He can only vote and hope his pick follows through on his promises. The individualisation for higher positions can only be eclipsed by resources. The tech world has opened up the possibility for others to enter with their creative mastery but it is insufficient to the masses. This polarised drought in the mix of a fast-moving never-sleeping city is overwhelmed in the pursuit of calm tranquil peacefulness. Mitigating that distance is via active imagination. Socialised endeavours do not operate smoothly on governmental grounds but in communitarian cohorts. A plan of fate meddling in a doctrinal symmetry. If communities stand for their risk-abiding nature, if they are the ones who ensure that their communities concern for each other it will prosper. It is attention and engagement that is fully necessitated.