Topic: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

I. Human history is:  1. Protofascist:  assortment of human beings by natural necessity.   2.Anti-fascist:  self-assortment of human beings under conditions of freedom (from necessity).   3. Fascist:  re-assortment of human beings through "purpose" (higher human intelligence).

Nature is more than organized, it is hierarchical.  Therefore when we suggest that society will be hierarchical, we are simply saying that society, as we understand the term, is consistent with the rest of nature.  This is not a point of empirical science but rather of logic. There will be no secret here of the fact that Force Theory, as the word suggests, has fascist--proto-, classical and neo-ideological leanings.  We openly admire the accomplishments of, in particular, Mussolini and the early fascist theorists and writers.  There is no point for anyone to decry the fascism in what we've written here; any moron can see our point of view.  It is open and aboveboard.  We have already unapologetically stated what we are.   On the other hand there are several reasonable points--fascist and democratic--which should be seen together in the broadest possible context.  In a broad perspective of nature in general the burden of proof lies with the proponents of democracy and political equality.   As a creation in nature where hierarchical structure is the rule, democracy is an anomaly.  A society of equals is contrary to what we see in the rest of nature.  In fact, democratic ideas contradict much about the ways human beings actually live together. 

But there is more.  Where we may reconcile with democracy, albeit temporarily, is in the idea that democracy while contrary to nature is consistent with human culture from primal times.  Force Theory takes inspiration from Philosophical Anthropology in looking for sources of modern culture in very early human life, from the first use of tools and technology, we are saying, and the first truly cooperative associations of humans around technics.  Culture itself has a leveling effect.  Precisely what this leveling effect is we will have to see shortly.  In the meantime it must suffice to say that, we must concede to proponants of democracy the point that, even as democracy is inconsistent with nature as a hierarchical order, democracy is on the other hand consistent with the way humans have lived--successfully--for many thousands of years.  In fact, the Fascist movement based on ideas of nature came, understandably, as a surprise.  Human beings are by virtue of the culture they all have equalitarian and democratic.  When we affirm Fascist principles, as we do here under the flag of Force Theory, we undertake a certain burden of proof.  There is a fascism of ordinary life, which humans have to share with animals, that reflects the duress impossed by nature.  Animals that live on the open ground develop "fascist" or hierarchical and highly coordinated strategies of defense. 
Every form of life whatsoever has a certain "fascist" orderliness to it.  Life in this sense, following Spengler, is "in form."   It is precisely this relentless pressure of nature which tends to hide, on the other hand, weakness.  Weaker forms survive in "raw" nature for the reason that there is no situation that can lure these forms into a false sense of saftey.

Last edited by richard_swartzbaugh (2010-09-22 18:58:15)

Re: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

II. Necessity of nature:  human beings under pressure of necessity are ranked spontaneously or by instinctive response within a group.... ***** Hunger means that a man who brings food is ranked high.   conflict with neighbors causes the man with warrior abilities to be ranked high.  *****This ranking is not discretionary  on the part of the people; the ranking is instinct, not human volition.    *****General fear within a community does by itself produce a ranking and organizational effect.*****The law is "necessity":  a person is ranked (sorted) according to clear criteria "of nature."  where there is necessity, law appears without human agency.   ******Nature is protofascist******Protofascist means:  without any human (conscious) intervention.

Human beings may be forced by more or less dire necessity, not so much  to rank themselves as they are ranked spontaneously or instinctively by this same necessity.  The challenge faced by the population structures the population.  This control that nature has we call force and has, indirectly, a "fascist" effect.   Groups under attack by an enemy resort spontaneously and instinctively to a "fascist" pecking order.  Baboons (of whom we speak with certain admiration), sensing attack by some large predator, organize themselves into a tight order of descending leadership and submission; this is the way nature plays out "fascistically."   War produces this same effect on otherwise democratic communities.  It would be false, as proponants of democracy are inclined to do, to attribute fascism wherever it appears to some theoretical argument of the past.  Also, professors with anti-democratic views--as this writer--are chastised for "destructive" views.  This is a false point of view.  We are talking finally about issues of nature that are outside human control.  Nietzsche did not cause German fascism to happen; rather it was the threat of war that brought that about. 

This ranking phenomenon can be seen in the most primitive horticultural or hunting societies.  Fascism in this sense is characteristic of baboons which, as a weaker species in the face of strong predators, must resort to a rigid, organized pack mentality.  Baboons, with no intent to disparage them on our part, are exemplary fascists.   (I have said this before.)   But not only danger from preditors brings on this strict order.   The fact of hunger within a group means that a man who can bring food is ranked high.   This ranking is not discretionary on the part of the people; the ranking is instinct, not human volition.   A person is ranked (sorted) according to clear criteria "of nature."  Where there is physical necessity, fascist law is the programmed response to the challenge.  Nature is protofascist.  Protofascist means:  without any human (conscious) intervention.  What is being said is that there is a structure of nature which imposes itself on the life of organisms.  The living being accomodates itself to nature in a process here called "natural," or in a State of Nature; and this accomodation results in a hierarchy of life.  Among such living groups are human groups.  These communities too, whatever intentions their members may have, produce, spontaneously and instinctively, a certain fascist or (as we are saying) protofascist order.

Nature, we are suggesting, sorts people into groups. But Nature does not sort people as well as, given the opportunity, people could sort themselves.   Nature is a selective process albeit an imperfect one that produces, in response, a social order based on nature's selections.  We might call this "natural selection."  Actually, it is a selection not only in the Darwinian sense for breeding but for prominance in the community.  In war, men are sorted by military ability.  In periods of hunger, men and women are sorted in terms of ability to work.  In periods demanding population growth, women rise in rank in the community.   Of course, when the war is ended the whole social structure is obsolete.  In times of plenty the farmer has no special rank.   The period of social and political preminance of these people is ended.  Baboons in captivity, lacking any challenge from "nature," fight among themselves and compete for females; their groupings fall into disorganization, their hierarchies lapse into a kind of hopeless competition of equals.  The same is true of human life.  The absence of necessity, and the absence of the fear it produces, causes human beings to lose morale and become aimless.  This is largely what we observe today in our civilization of luxury and plenty.  No longer is there a natural sorting of human beings into abilities and groups.  There is a great amalgamation of human beings, precisely through their success in creating "labor -saving devices, that has brought about first the opportunity and then the fact of equalitarian decadence.

Finally--this point will be elaborated shortly--this freedom of choice, which comes from modern freedom from need and necessity, allows human beings to "express themselves" and to declare themselves for what they truly are.  Nature, and natural repression, inhibits this expression--now through affluence and democracy these inhibitions are lifted.  While "in a State of Nature" humans hid their true proclivities.  Thus there was a certain decadence or source of weakness already built into the protofascist society.  The same character traits, we are saying, that would surface during freedom were hidden in a primitive social group.  No weakness was allowed under dire necessity, and so no weakness was shown by anyone.  Anyone showing weakness with alcohol/narcotics, gambling or sexual proclivities was simply eliminated in the expidited justice practices that exist under primitive conditions.  Hunters and horticulturalists eliminate their wayward members and, obviously, less waywardness is shown.  Civilization with its ease and equality and its admonishons "not to be critical or hurtful" allows these predilictions to appear.  Human beings declare themselves in their weaknesses, and they are allowed to do so--even applauded.  We accept this state of affairs, as exists now.  It paves the way, we are saying, for the Fascist society of the future.  Future Fascist society will be purified of the very traits that nature, through the fear that nature produced, allowed to exist.  Traits of self-indulgence which appear now can simply be segregated and rendered harmless, consciously and by group action, in the Fascist society to come.

The greatest evolutional challenge in the history of humanity is that which exists today--to survive luxury.  Those who survive luxury and, as equals, lack of competition, will build the new society of order and self-discipline and "seriousness."

Last edited by richard_swartzbaugh (2009-09-30 14:00:49)

Re: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

II.  Necessity dictates the law and organization of the people.****A cooperative effort demands organization.
****Organization means structure.****Structure means hierarchy.****Hierarchy means "oppression" of some sort.  *****This is an order of nature, not of man in his human capacity.*****Most human life in the past has been proto-fascist in this sense.*****Nature itself is proto-fascist; humans were never, until recendly (with freedom through machines from work), exceptions to the fascist hierarchy of nature.

Human beings organize themselves through and around some activity.  Engels was most perceptive in pointing this out.  Society itself in the feudal period was structured through feudal activities, or we should say more precisely, the technics and tools of the period.  Human beings came together in structured releations in a way that would utilize the tools of a certain period.  At the same time, these same work activities became social activities.  Guilds formed which, to protect trade secrets, would allow marriage only within the guild; the guilds became small castes.  Engles, following Morgan, talked extensively about the clan system, which was held over from earlier agricultural times.  The clan system of social organization was appropriate to the feudal workshop, as the clan had also provided structure to agriculture work in those times.  Feudalism in Europe may be taken here as an example of a viable way of life in which economic and social factors easily meshed and harmonized.  This way of life, which was spontaneous and instinctive, will never appear again.  We are saying that the main features of feudalism will appear only in the artificial construct we call Neofascism.

As I said earlier, first humans organize themselves around some need.  This would be the daily necessity to get food.  The organization of society, what little there was of it, was along lines the male-female division of labor in hunting (male) and gathering (female).   The best hunter, but also the one whose powers of personal persuasion were the greatest, was also the headman.  Vigor and strength were the personal qualities of his high office.  As technics advanced, on the other hand, the craftsman who made the weapons of the hunt gained prominance.   Bows and arrows and other implements required skill in the making.  Older men who could not run or were weaker were nonetheless enlisted as craftsmen and were appropriately rewarded with larger shares of the killed animals.  As survival depended more upon the various talents of individuals, hitherto hidden, authority and prestige thus tended to be distributed throughout the group.  This trend continued throughout the entire history of culture, up until the present--where technical skills were once more consigned to special persons and humans generally, as proletarians, sank to the bottom of the social hierarchy.  We may say with confindence, however, that through the feudal period the ability in the crafts was appreciated and rewarded.  So that a skilled blacksmith, say, or carpenter could flourish. 

T.Veblen speaks of the pride of workmanship.  Success of a culture depended eventually, far beyond hunting/gathering, and into the agricultural period, on its technics.  Around technics the entire society was structured, so that, say, a workshop or factory (at their respective levels of development) itself became the infrastructure of society.  One's hierarchical position in society depended upon one's legal relationship to the tools and instruments of production.  We may at this point move from people under hunting and gathering to the mentality of humans in an advanced technological economy.  First need was the source of social structure (humans structured themselves as they came together to face some physical challenge.  Then opportunity caused men to associate in ranked and hierarchical organization. 

An opportunity I define here is a challenge that human beings have themselves created.  We are no longer talking here of a challenge posed by nature as such.  A tool or machine poses such an opportunity.  I said earlier that the cotton gin posed a new opportunity for slave traders and slave owners; slavery itself flourished.  Slaves were held as collatoral by banks; when a cotton farmer failed, the bank took over his slaves.  Throughout the history of the human economy, among civilized people, there exist these small openings for gain.  Also throughout Western history, on the other hand, there has been a trend in the economy whereby human beings themselves have become "equals" precisely as the habit of craftsmanship has become redundant.  Machines themselves, finally, become the craftsmen and replace human effort on every level, whether of slaves or freemen.  Workers standing at machines in factories are reduced to an equality of performance, and as such, to an equality of society.  This is a fact recognized by post-Marxist sociology.  The main divisions of the economy, between so-called capitalist and worker, are also the divisions of society.

The word freedom originally had some significance.  We propose that freedom meant free from.  This could be freedom from disease, hunger and so forth. Labor, in itself, was felt to be onerous.  There was the labor of the hunt, labor of farming and so forth.   First the tool or artifact and then the machine were efforts on the part of human beings to free themselves from labor, a goal which, relatively (to older conditions) was finally accomplished.  That is, machines now do the work of human beings; this thought, and all conscious effort, was in the direction of finally eliminating effort or work of any kind.  One constructive consequence of work, however, as we have already seen, was to organize human beings in stable social groups within which life was predictable and where people were comfortable with one another.  Work was a social thing, partly, even apart from the effort or drudgery it entailed.  Work became, directly or indirectly, the very fabric of society. To eliminate work, as humans were determined to do, was to eliminate society itself as a structured, orderly relationship.  All human efforts, essentially, were to undermine the thing that kept humans together as a social entity.  The very fact of cooperation became a thing of the past.  I believe that on this point--that work had been already effectively taken away from the working class--was one which had escaped Engels.  In Engels' time work of human beings was rapidly being transfered to automated factories. 

The proletarian is, as Engels said, truly a product of modern industry; he is one who has only his labor to sell.  The relationship of the proletarian to the instruments of production is entirely a commercial one in which personal motives are absent.  Work itself is depersonalized; as an abstraction, labor can be reduced to other abstractions.  Labor can be replaced by a mechanical process, and so this has come to be.  The word working class is therefore a misnomer.  By the time of Marxism labor was already obsolete and the laborer himself was a person without any real economic means whatsoever.  This exclusion was supposed to result in the poverty of the proletarian; in fact the proletariat proved useful for political purposes.  But there is more.  The proletariat as consumer became ever more a necessary link in the economy.  We do not have to involve ourselves, in Force Theory, with the problem of poverty or even the problem of inequality.  What Force Theory decries is the formlessness of the proletarian masses, their utter lack of differentiation in terms of taste and lifestyle, and their inability to make important personal decisions.   By Engels' time, virtually, the working classes were begining to dominate the economy as to what the economy would produce.  They had been excluded from any direct decision making within the economy.   

Proletarians existed in and around the economy without being a real part of it; in this they followed the machine as the horse followed the automobile.  The very social and economic forces that Engels had so applauded had excluded the actual people who had brought the economy into existence.  Engels decried the technicality of ownership under capitalism without really understanding the force that mass tastes would impose on mass-production.   Not the proletarian as worker but the "common man" came to force decisions regarding what goods would be produced.   Engels' (following Hegel and perhaps Fichte, in the latter's theory of alienation) saw the estrangement, entfremdung, of actual humans from the system upon which they were ultimately dependent.  "Capitalist expropriation" was thought to have caused the alienation, whereupon the money class wrested industry from the workers.  Alienation, as I said, was believed by Engels to hinge on the fact that workers did not "legally" own the instruments of production, when in fact through the choices they made, as the "common man," they utterly dictated what the machines would produce. 

The legality of ownership is not an issue we need concern ourselves with here.   Actually, the most significant act of expropriation came when engineers progressively reduced human work to mechanical principles and created, then, a machine that outperformed the human.  Human beings lost not their ownership, merely, but virtually their social relationships or those that had existed since agriculture and feudalism through the technics of production.  Purely financial practices had nothing to do with this expropriation, we are saying.  Still, the human being was left as a consumer.   Humans were essentially out of work; that is, if work was to be had by anyone it had to be invented.  This is what modern society has largely done--create ersatz jobs and print money to provide the consumer power that would keep machines operating.   The main consequence of these events was, however, that the connection between work and society was severed. 

Slavery constitutes another but not entirely different issue.  New technics of cotton farming replaced the slave system in general.  The slave system disappeared.  The lives lost in a war over slavery were wasted; slavery would have ended without a war.  But the fate of slaves qua slaves was to be shared by the so-called working class.  In the aftermath of the industrial revolution there existed a formless mass of humanity without purpose or direction.  It would be a mistake even to call this group the proletariat if by that we mean "workers."  It is into this world of a formless humanity that the principle of Fascism comes.  We will talk about Fascism shortly.   Here I specify the white working class as the group of humans most throughoutly culled through the Euro-American mechanization process.  I have already talked about the rise of equality in the industrial society.  We are not talking about equality, here, that is prescribed by democratic theory of the so-called Enlightenment.  Rather we are talking about equality before, or in the face of, automated work that is the machine. 

By white I mean of course a specific population within humanity, corresponding to the North Europeans.  But I mean more.  White is a state of mind or mentality that is presently anti-fascist and anti-nature.  Whites are those people who oppose themselves as a race.  Such opposition is a phase of the logical process of history.  White racial traits sort themselves out "freely," or negatively; this process poses the opportunity for "positive" selection of healthy traits and the discarding of unhealthy ones.

The white man has freed himself from labor by passing that labor to machines.  What we call the "proletariat"--which includes almost everyone in society, both blue collar and white collar workers--has become equal, not, not as prescribed by communist and democratic theory, by being included in the economy.  Workers--rather former workers--are equal by virtue of being excluded from the economy.  This is how we find the European and American white worker in the so-called global society.  The equality that men share there is one that results from everyone having the same relationship with the machines that support them--that is, no relationship at all.   What held human beings together as social groups, and organized them in predictable relationships within these groups, had failed as a consequence of the human being's efforts to "free" himself.  The human being had engineered himself--built the machines that would negate himself as a social being--his own social destruction.  Destruction in this sense mean "freedom."  Force Theory proposes to be the alternative to a self-destructive freedom.

I made the point in my Philtalk.de presentation that Europeans have sent us their worst ideas--democracy--and kept the better ones, Fascism and Anarchism for instance, for themselves.The equality talked about by theorists of the Enlightenment was equality in a very vague sense. What in truth today separates one man from another as unequal is money.  There can be little inequality of goods today, where we are talking about mass produced consumer goods; the individual person can use a certain quantity of these goods, but no more.  Rich and poor people distinguish one another by an abstract quantiy--money--which is intrinsically worthless.  Thus today there is real equality as never before. 

As I say, if one man is hierarchically higher than another, it is because the higher man has more money than the lower man.  And money, we must point out--is nothing at all.  Money is an abstract commodity and useful for nothing; in no serious way does money, in the Western style white economy, distinguish humans as to intrinsic quality of life.   We may conclude this by simply looking around ourselves.  Goods that are produced are for a mass consumer, a sort of consumer proletariat.  It is in this way--as selecting goods to buy--that proletarians distinguish themselves.   What is made by the means of mass production is  designed to satisfy mass or proletarian tastes. A whole new social concept has arisen:  the proletarianization of taste.   

Consumer goods, produced in abundance, reflect a lowering of personal choice and taste in general.   In this--the production of goods--modern democracy and equalitarianism distinguishes itself from the aristocratic society of the past.  The aristocracy of taste is not entirely gone but it is hidden in democratic society.  This is the real point of democracy, finally.  One can be certain, through the choices and actions of the proletariat, that there is not hidden there some private, unassuming aristocrat of taste.  Those few people, perhaps living in relative poverty, can now appear and finally take their place in the Fascist society of the future--wherein they impose their taste, as they should impose it, on the stragling masses of white people.  This--to relegate persons according to their free choices--to a social structure is what I call Falscism in a pure sense.

Last edited by richard_swartzbaugh (2009-10-03 16:06:47)

Re: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

4. Under necessity, humans "oppress" one another through the organized work they have to do.
Necessity "demands" that humans cooperate; and in conjunction with this cooperation there is a hierarchy
of command and compliance.  Necessity in dictating the order and organization of work, dictates also the order of society.

The obsolescence of work itself, essentially the end of the human contribution to the economy, left behind something called the proletariat.  In Engels' time, virtually, the working classes had been excluded from the economy.  They existed in and around the economy without being a real part of it; in this they followed the machine as the horse followed the automobile.  The very social and economic forces that Engels had so applauded had excluded the actual people who had brought the economy into existence.   Engels' (following Hegel and perhaps Fichte, in the latter's theory of alienation) saw the estrangement, entfremdung, of actual humans from the system upon which they were ultimately dependent.  "Capitalist expropriation" was thought to have caused the alienation, whereupon the money class wrested industry from the workers.  Actually, the true act of expropriation came when engineers progressively reduced human work to mechanical principles and created, then, a machine that outperformed the human.  Purely financial practices had nothing to do with this expropriation, we are saying.  Still, the human being was left as a consumer.   Humans were essentially out of work; that is, if work was to be had by anyone it had to be invented.  This is what modern society has largely done--create ersatz jobs and print money to provide the consumer power that would keep machines operating.   The main consequence of these events was, however, that the connection between work and society was severed. 

New technics of cotton farming replaced the slave system in general.  The slave system disappeared.  The lives lost in a war over slavery were wasted; slavery would have ended without a war.  But the fate of slaves qua slaves was to be shared by the so-called working class.  In the aftermath of the industrial revolution there existed a formless mass of humanity without purpose or direction.  It would be a mistake even to call this group the proletariat if by that we mean "workers."  It is into this world of a formless humanity that the principle of Fascism comes.  We will talk about Fascism shortly.   Here I specify the white working class as the group of humans most throughoutly culled through the Euro-American mechanization process.  I have already talked about the rise of equality in the industrial society.  We are not talking about equality, here, that is prescribed by democratic theory of the so-called Enlightenment.  Rather we are talking about equality before, or in the face of, automated work that is the machine.  The white man has freed himself from labor by passing that labor to machines.  What we call the "proletariat"--which includes almost everyone in society, both blue collar and white collar workers--has become equal, not, not as prescribed by communist and democratic theory, by being included in the economy.  Workers--rather former workers--are equal by virtue of being excluded from the economy.  This is how we find the European and American white worker in the so-called global society.  The equality that men share there is one that results from everyone having the same relationship with the machines that support them--that is, no relationship at all.   What held human beings together as social groups, and organized them in predictable relationships within these groups, had failed as a consequence of the human being's efforts to "free" himself.  The human being had engineered himself--built the machines that would negate himself as a social being--his own social destruction.  Destruction in this sense mean "freedom."  Force Theory proposes to be the alternative to a self-destructive freedom.

We must be clear on one point.  What separates one man from another as unequal is money.  If one man is hierarchically higher than another, it is because the higher man has more money than the lower man.  And money, we must point out--is nothing at all.  Money is an abstract commodity and useful for nothing; in no serious way does money, in the Western style white economy, distinguish humans as to intrinsic quality of life.   We may conclude this by simply looking around ourselves.  Goods that are produced are for a mass consumer, a sort of consumer proletariat.  It is in this way--as selecting goods to buy--that proletarians distinguish themselves.  Self-expression of the proletarian is in the choices he makes; this is his statement as to the person he is.    The cars, the boats, the movies and so forth are designed to satisfy proletarian tastes.  In this--the production of goods--modern democracy and equalitarianism distinguishes itself from the aristocratic society of the past.  The aristocracy of taste is not entirely gone but it is hidden in democratic society.  This is the real point of democracy, finally.  One can be certain, through the choices and actions of the proletariat, that there is not hidden there some private, unassuming aristocrat of taste.  Those few people, perhaps living in relative poverty, can now appear and finally take their place in the Fascist society of the future--wherein they impose their taste, as they should impose it, on the stragling masses of white people.  This--to relegate persons according to their free choices--to a social structure is what I call Falscism in a pure sense. 

We are saying that freedom from work--which had the important negative result--had one benefit.  Proletarianization [neologism] has had the important effect of allowing human beings to appear as they really are--"express themselves"--which result has prepared the way for the society to come, which I have called true or Neofascism.  We have talked extensively so far about democracy whose theory descends to us through the European Enlightenment.  The real freedom and equality that have come to us, on the other hand, follow from no theory but rather of the physical fact of the machine and industrialism.   These arise the small inventiveness of everyday craftsmen slightly adjusting their technics, making miniscule improvements in no particular order and with no particular reference to a general theory.  This is how the Western economy has evolved. We may call the result "modernism."   The Western economy moreover has drawn from cultures around the world, on all continents; this civilization is without racial or ethnic identity.  The econmy by the same token has effectively dissolved the social relations--of family, kinship,  cooperation in crafts and work projects--that have existed since, for all we are concerned, from the paleolithic period.  White people, precisely because of their initial involvement in--and sacrifice to--the creation of industrialism and impersonal commerce are the ones who have abjured, too, social relationships.  This is a radical assumption but one that will prove true.  In fact, within the white community social relationships are regarded as conspiritorial, as, in other words, threatening opulance and the the global system which has produced opulance.  Humans we call white do not call themselves white, for fear of asserting a racial identity.  The white race as creator of the industrial system has lost the most--identity--by exposure to it.

Hegel coined the term "negation of the negation."   Fascism is the negation of the negation called modernism.  What freedom and equality have meant is a release of personal attributes, some we are calling positive or long-term beneficial and some negative, in an outpouring of "self-expression."  In "nature," these traits remained hidden.  We have seen in the context of modern technics the rise to prominence of humans we never knew existed, with great mathematical and scientific skills.  These have thrived as computer experts.  This has been one of the few great oportunities for human advancement that science has produced.  On the other hand, the computer has shut off as many oportunities as it has opened.  By no means does Force Theory propose to impair or negate modern technology, only, as I say, repair the social damage that technics have caused.  This damage has been that technics have dissolved social relationships simply by bringing to prominance humans with socially and self-destructive habits.   We do not need to reiterate what is already clearly stated in daily newspapers and on television.  We have enough of that already.  I have in mind rather a general theory in which, having already sorted themselves out as of this or that social and personal disposition, humans fall into categories of socially competent or incompetent.  As I have said before, the society New Force Theory proposes is not for everyone on earth, not even for the majority of people--who can go their own ways--but for a few serious people.  I have already suggested that, for these people to exist in a constructive society, they must have already had a tested mode of relationship, a predictability among themselves which I have identified as race.  Moreover, as the group most exposed to modernism, white people will finally constitute the "negation of the negation" in a white Fascist society.

Last edited by richard_swartzbaugh (2009-10-02 13:39:34)

Re: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

5.

under conditions imposed by a hunting/gathering way of life, a division of labor by gender is an obvious instinctive response.

beyond gender, at the time of agriculture, slavery appears as a spontaneous response to necessity.

Engels:  slavery is a naturwuechsig Form der Arbeitsteilung.

slavery is the natural way human communities grow larger where agriculture is in place; but where, on the other hand,

                  there is still pressing need and hunger among the people.

slavery is a natural order of society--where need and necessity exist.

Re: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

6.

the liberation of the human being is first and foremost his liberation from necessity and work.

the cotton gin made Negro slavery profitable.

slavery was now expanded.

the mechanical picker made Negro slavery unprofitable.

the mechanical picker ended slavery.

the slaves were now free.

they had free choice.

the freedom they--but especially the whites--were given positioned them for their relationship within or to the society of the future, which is Fascism.

Re: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

7.

freedom as a condition of the society of the future.

our pundits have been right--human beings have a future only if they are free.

their future--Fascism--is anything but free.

the Fascist society (which is itself a necessity) is possible only through freedom; but that freedom must end

responsibility and seriousness are the new "fascist" principles.

Re: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

8.

Re: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

9.

Re: 22. PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY (MAJOR REVISIONS)

10.