Communism Fails to Critique Capitalism

by Momcilo Nevesky

Understanding The Hegelian Conception of History

The essence of Marx's philosophy lies in his purported "correction" of German idealism, particularly Hegel. While proponents of German idealism argue that Marx and his followers distorted Hegel's ideas to construct communism, Marxists contend that they elevated Hegel to his true significance. However, this video will not delve into an elaborate exposition of Hegel's philosophy; rather, it will provide a basic explanation of Hegel's philosophy of history, which the Marxists adopt.

First and foremost, it is important to discard any preconceived notions about Hegel's philosophy of history that simplify it to "thesis, antithesis, and synthesis." This popularized view, often attributed to Hegel, actually belongs to fellow German idealist Fichte, not Hegel himself. While certain Maoists may adhere to the Fichtean dialectic, today's discussion focuses on orthodox Marxism as espoused by Marx. Hegel's conception of history and dialectic centers around an immaterial spirit. This notion of spirit does not refer to ghosts but rather to the intangible essence that can be likened to being "high-spirited" or the collective enthusiasm displayed by a group of cheering students at a sporting event.

Hegel describes it as:

“The spiritual sphere is all-embracing; it encompasses everything that has concerned mankind down to the present day. Man is active within it; and whatever he does, the spirit is also active within him.”

— Hegel, Philosophy of History

According to Hegel, the immaterial spirit in history has a teleology or goal that it seeks to achieve within its own boundaries. However, as the spirit realizes that it must change itself in order to fully actualize its goal and fulfill its teleology, it undergoes a qualitative shift. This process continues, with each transformation leading to a new teleology, until the Absolute Spirit is reached. Hegel himself describes this process as the spirit's ultimate aim being the attainment of knowledge. The spirit seeks to create a spiritual world that aligns with its own concept, manifesting its true nature and giving rise to religion and the state in a manner that is in accordance with its own concept. This universal goal of the spirit and history is similar to how a seed contains the potential of an entire tree, including its taste and fruits. The initial glimmers of spirit already contain the essence of the entire course of history.

Marx's thought is often summarized as a combination of French socialism, British economics, and German idealism, with the latter being the source of his philosophy of history. However, it should be noted that Marx does not adopt Hegel's philosophy in its entirety. He introduces materialism into Hegel's immaterial idealism, creating a unique amalgamation that has been subject to criticism, such as Giovanni Gentile's critique of Marx. The Marxist conception of history is not based on the simplistic thesis, antithesis, and synthesis model, but rather on the Hegelian view where each stage of history ironically finds its goal better fulfilled in a subsequent stage, leading to a qualitative change in order to better actualize itself.

How Marxism Critiques Capitalism

It is essential to note that Marxism does not reject the Enlightenment or the ideas put forth by radical bourgeois thinkers like Rousseau, Kant, and Adam Smith. In fact, Marxists view contemporary society as an unfulfilled promise of the Enlightenment and radical bourgeois thought. The French Revolution, for instance, is seen as falling short of fully realizing its goals.

Many key principles of Marxism can be traced back to the Enlightenment, such as a progressive understanding of history, a class struggle perspective, a new concept of freedom that emphasizes individual power, secularism, and a rejection of a fixed notion of human nature in favor of the belief that human nature is malleable and should evolve. Additionally, Marx borrows the concept of a classless society from bourgeois radicals, particularly the idea of the Third Estate during the French Revolution. The Third Estate encompassed everyone outside of the ecclesiastical and noble castes, including peasants, merchants, bankers, factory owners, and workers.

Contemporary Marxist thinker Chris Cutrone elaborates on this, highlighting that the consciousness of history as the story of human freedom was not original to Marxism but had its roots in the self-conscious thought of emerging bourgeois society in the 18th century, championed by Rousseau, Kant, and Hegel. Rousseau's notion of "perfectibility" emphasized the capacity of humans to reflect upon and change their own nature. This new conception of freedom focused on transforming and realizing new possibilities, rather than conforming to a fixed ideal.

The emergence of bourgeois society held the promise of a classless society based on the inclusive Third Estate, which represented all productive elements of society, excluding the clergy and nobility. The theory proposed that the bourgeoisie, proletariat, petite bourgeoisie, and peasants could coexist harmoniously in a classless society united by the general will under the banner of the Third Estate. However, despite the successful bourgeois revolutions throughout Europe and Russia, the revolutionary ideals of radical bourgeois thought were not fully realized. Instead of a classless society represented by the Third Estate, class antagonisms emerged with the advent of capitalism and the industrial revolution. Marxists point to examples such as wage slavery, exploitation of surplus labor, and alienation of workers from their labor as evidence of the contradiction within bourgeois society under capitalism. What distinguishes Marx's critique from nationalist, religious, or right-wing perspectives is his assertion that the problem lies in the failure of bourgeois capitalist society to live up to its own ideals, particularly the revolutionary goal of abolishing class. 

“We defend Jacobinism against the attacks, [...] of anaemic, [and] phlegmatic liberalism. The bourgeoisie has shamefully betrayed all the traditions of its historical youth, and its present hirelings dishonour the graves of its ancestors and scoff at the ashes of their ideals. The proletariat has taken the honour of the revolutionary past of the bourgeoisie under its protection. The proletariat, however radically it may have, in practice, broken with the revolutionary traditions of the bourgeoisie, nevertheless preserves them, as a sacred heritage of great passions, heroism and initiative, and its heart beats in sympathy with the speeches and acts of the Jacobin Convention.”

— Leon Trotsky, Results and Prospects

Marx's critique of capitalist society follows an imminent dialectical approach, which means that he critiques society from within the framework of bourgeois society itself. This approach is rooted in the understanding of contradictions and the possibility of transformation. Capitalism, according to Marx, contains its own contradiction in the form of class struggle, which undermines its own goals. The resolution of this contradiction, Marx argues, lies in the establishment of a classless society through a global dictatorship of the proletariat, which would eventually abolish itself to create a truly classless society. It is worth noting that Marx did not provide a detailed description of what a communist society would look like.

In the context of this immanent dialectical critique, capitalism points towards communism in a manner consistent with Hegelian philosophy. Marx sees the proletariat as the revolutionary agents capable of resolving the contradictions of capitalism and advancing humanity towards the next stage in the progressive history of human freedom. This is where Hegelian notions become relevant. Bourgeois society has certain goals, such as human emancipation and a classless society, but it can only truly realize these goals or its own teleology through a qualitative shift towards communism. This shift is referred to as "selbst-Aufhebung" in German, which roughly translates to self-sublation.

Why Marxism Is Reactionary

When Marx and his followers criticize capitalism, their critique differs from what is commonly associated with right-wing or conservative perspectives. They do not blame capitalism for replacing collective values with individualism, promoting globalization, destroying traditional familial ties, or substituting God with materialism.

While there may be some overlapping views between Marx and certain illiberal right-wing thinkers, Marx's perspective is fundamentally different. Communists, in fact, embrace the disruptive nature of capitalism and view its destructive and anti-social forces as pointing towards the need for communism. This sentiment is evident in the Communist manifesto, which states:

"All that is solid melts into air, all that is sacred is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses his real conditions of life and his relations with his kind."

— Karl Marx, Communist manifesto

Returning to Marx's method of immanent dialectical critique, we can understand that communism emerges as a reaction to capitalism. It arises only after the contradictions within bourgeois society have become apparent and have been resolved. This is why we find Marx urging his comrades in the Manifesto to support the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy in certain circumstances.

“In Germany, [Communists must] fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie. […] The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation and with a much more developed proletariat than that of England was in the seventeenth, and France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.”

— Karl Marx, Communist manifesto

Expanding on the argument, Arthur Dent, a contemporary Marxist, asserts that the current Left has become reactionary rather than supportive of modernity and progress. The communist movement has transformed into an anti-capitalist movement that unites anyone against capitalism, including liberals, social democrats, and various reactionary individuals. Dent argues that the Communist manifesto cannot be labeled as an anti-capitalist manifesto, but rather as a communist manifesto that praises the revolutionary impact of capitalism in dismantling the old societal order.

The entire communist project is built on the existence of capitalism and reacts to its presence. Therefore, communism is inherently a reactionary ideology. However, Dent clarifies that he does not mean reactionary in the sense that it developed solely as a response to another set of ideas, as most ideologies are influenced by previous systems. Instead, communism takes this reactionary aspect further by basing its entire system on the fact that capitalism exists and represents the Hegelian fulfillment of capitalism's teleology. It is seen as the culmination of the Enlightenment and bourgeois society, overturning every aspect of pre-existing structures.

In essence, communism cannot exist in isolation. It relies on a specific historical development and reacts to a particular stage in the timeline of history in order to achieve its goals. Other ideologies, such as feudalism, liberalism, traditionalism, or even various utopian socialists, do not face this challenge because they can be implemented on a desert island with 100 randomly transported individuals. In contrast, communism would require that the island's inhabitants first embrace bourgeois thought, establish class antagonism between the proletariat and the capitalist class, and only then could communism be realized. Dent argues that this makes communism a more reactionary ideology than even Scholastic Monarchical Feudalism. 

“So now modern industry, in its complete development, comes into collision with the bounds within which the capitalist mode of production holds it confined. The new productive forces have already outgrown the capitalistic mode of using them. And this conflict between productive forces and modes of production is not a conflict engendered in the mind of man, like that between original sin and divine justice. It exists, in fact, objectively, outside us, independently of the will and actions even of the men that have brought it on. Modern Socialism [ie Marxist Communism] is nothing but the reflex, in thought, of this conflict in fact; its ideal reflection in the minds, first, of the class directly suffering under it, the working class.”

— Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian and Scientific

It is incorrect to label Marx as an anti-capitalist, as his goal is not to simply oppose capitalism, but to dialectically fulfill and overcome its contradictions. Marx famously predicted that countries with developed capitalism and a large proletariat class, such as France, Germany, and England, would be the first to experience a workers' revolution.

Even Lenin, in preparing for the revolution in agrarian Russia with limited industrialization and exposure to capitalism, recognized that the few existing proletarians in Russia would need to lead the revolution, followed by the peasants, all under the guidance of the vanguard party. Lenin emphasizes that the struggle encompasses not only the fight against landlords and officials alongside the entire peasantry but also the socialist struggle to abolish the rule of capital. This relates back to the Marxist method of critiquing the system, known as the Imminent dialectical critique. Essentially, this means that the critique is inherently reactionary and relies on the existence of capitalism for implementation. Unlike other ideologies such as the third and fourth political theory, traditionalism, or distributism, communism requires capitalism to exist before it can be realized. These ideologies can function independently without the precondition of capitalism. 

Why Communism Fails to Critique Capitalism

After establishing the radical bourgeois and liberal origins of Marxist thought, as well as the reactive nature of communism to capitalism's aftermath, I will now present my third point: the failure of communism to provide a substantial critique of capitalism. A pertinent question arises: what aspects of 21st century capitalism would Marx disagree with? Despite the communist assertion that capitalism is a distortion of the radical bourgeois revolution, it is difficult to see how this critique can hold true in the Western context, where liberalism and capitalism have been dominant for centuries. Our current system of liberal capitalism can be seen as the realization of the radical bourgeois goals. The nationalist critique of liberalism does not stem from its failure, but from the recognition that liberalism and radical bourgeois thought have been successfully manifested in the West.

As expressed by Patrick Deneen in his thought-provoking book, Why Liberalism Failed:

“Liberalism has failed—not because it fell short, but because it was true to itself. It has failed because it has succeeded. As liberalism has “become more fully itself,” as its inner logic has become more evident and its self-contradictions manifest, it has generated pathologies that are at once deformations of its claims yet realizations of liberal ideology. A political philosophy that was launched to foster greater equity, defend a pluralist tapestry of different cultures and beliefs, protect human dignity, and, of course, expand liberty, in practice generates titanic inequality, enforces uniformity and homogeneity, fosters material and spiritual degradation, and undermines freedom. Its success can be measured by its achievement of the opposite of what we have believed it would achieve.”

— Patrick Deneen, Why Liberalism Failed

The proliferation of bourgeois ideals, such as individualism and human power over nature, has led to the emergence of transgenderism and the sexualization of identity through fetish culture and gay liberation. However, basing one's identity on geographical connection is seen as reactionary by both capitalists and communists. Engels' critique of the family has played a significant role in second wave feminism, resulting in the liberation of women from traditional roles through feminism, no-fault divorce, birth control, abortion, and the welfare state. Similarly, men have been relieved of masculine obligations through the prevalence of pornography and video games.

The new feminist movement aims to deny the distinction between man and woman, which paradoxically contradicts Engels' own views. In the past, liberals and communists aligned in advocating for the liberation of various groups, such as women, black individuals, and the LGBTQ+ community. However, these issues have largely been resolved from a liberal perspective, leading to a perceived progression of society and the current focus on the liberation of "minor-attracted persons."

Notably, Marxist gay-rights activist John D'Emilio acknowledges that capitalism has contributed to the formation of gay identity and the ability to construct personal lives based on same-sex attraction. However, D'Emilio's analysis becomes outdated when he questions how capitalism, which facilitated the emergence of gay identity, remains unable to accept gay individuals. In today's capitalist society, homosexuality and alternative lifestyles are increasingly promoted, while attacks on the traditional family structure occur across various aspects of society.

D'Emilio's attempt to criticize capitalism's contradictory nature and alleged homophobia falls flat in the current context. Companies openly support LGBTQ+ causes, wave rainbow flags, and sponsor pride parades, challenging the notion that capitalism is inherently homophobic. D'Emilio, like many Marxists, underestimates capitalism's revolutionary nature, leaving his critique of contemporary society lacking substance. 

The only way for Marxists to critique modern society on social issues is to argue that it is not going far enough, essentially suggesting that communism is merely an acceleration of capitalism rather than a break from its logic. While I personally find little value in the Marxist critique of capitalism, it is important to give credit where it's due. Marx and his followers have correctly identified the inherently destructive and revolutionary nature of capitalism, yet they paradoxically revel in its success.

This brings us to the next point: communism is merely an extension and acceleration of the liberal worldview and does not provide a solid foundation for critiquing capitalism. To illustrate this further, let's examine the perspectives of two prominent critics of liberalism: Carl Schmitt and Ted Kaczynski. Schmitt argues that a core tenet of liberalism is the surface-level denial of the friend-enemy distinction, which is the basis of all politics. However, in practice, liberalism ends up designating those who recognize this distinction as its enemies, despite officially rejecting it. This can be seen in Karl Popper's "paradox of tolerance," where the tolerant open society cannot tolerate those who are intolerant. Liberalism claims to reject the friend-enemy distinction, but anyone who accepts it becomes its enemy.

Other examples of this contradiction can be found in the liberal desire for diversity in all areas except diversity of thought, justified by the notion that "free speech stops at hate speech." Additionally, liberalism's concept of human rights seems to end when individuals challenge the system in symbolic or actual ways. Over time, the definition of the "in-group" expands, encompassing various groups and causes.

The ultimate goal of liberalism is to create a depoliticized society where there are no friend-enemy distinctions, as everyone becomes happy-go-lucky liberal individualist consumers. Schmitt's analysis offers a more insightful understanding of liberalism and Western bourgeois society compared to the Marxist analysis. It defines one of the primary logics of liberalism, which we can compare and contrast with the logic of communism. However, before delving into that, it's important to touch on what Kaczynski calls "The System's Neatest Trick."

"The System's Neatest Trick" refers to the ability of the system to manipulate radicals into rebelling against it in a way that actually perpetuates its logic. Kaczynski uses the example of racism, which the system claims to be against, yet still persists in individuals within the system, such as politicians, police officers, judges, and businessmen. Rebels are allowed to target these individuals under the guise of fighting racism, believing they are acting as rebels when they are actually enforcing the system's rules and perpetuating its teleology.

Kaczynski goes on to explain,

“Im order to bring themselves into conflict even with that majority of the System's leaders who fully accept the social changes that the System demands, the would-be rebels insist on solutions that go farther than what the System's leaders consider prudent, and they show exaggerated anger over trivial matters.”

— Ted Kaczynski, Industrial Society and Its Future

While Kaczynski's analysis may appear to target center-left liberals, it can be argued that it applies more to communists themselves. Many communists claim to have a radical critique of capitalism, but according to their own logic, they are falling into the System's Neatest Trick. They are inadvertently furthering the goals of liberalism. Liberalism, as Schmitt explains, seeks a globalized and depoliticized society. Communism, on the other hand, aims to complete the bourgeois project by creating a global working class bound together by their material interests, establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat, and ultimately abolishing all classes. In essence, communism seeks to eliminate the friend-enemy distinction and depoliticize humanity, which aligns with capitalism's current objectives.

For communists who understand Hegel and Marx, this should come as no surprise. They recognize that communism is not negating capitalism through an antithesis but rather seeing themselves as the dialectical fulfillment of the bourgeois revolutions. From this perspective, they can be viewed as reactionary liberals attempting to outdo the existing liberal system in their pursuit of bourgeois ideals, falling into what Kaczynski aptly called the System's Neatest Trick.

A true critique of the system requires thinking beyond the logic of capitalism and creating a paradigm that exists outside of it, not predicated on capitalism's existence or non-existence. However, Marxists themselves admit that they do not strive to do this. The real irony of capitalism lies not in the creation of class struggle with the promise of its abolition, but rather in the fact that the goal of global revolution and depoliticization has been more effectively achieved by Trotskyites who have abandoned their socialist affiliations to join the Republican Party and become neoconservatives. These individuals have done more to bring us closer to a global depoliticized society than any combination of Marxist and communist movements ever have.

Conclusions

I originally intended this article to focus on why a red-brown alliance is fundamentally impossible, but it has expanded in scope and found its full realization in its current form. Nonetheless, I will briefly touch on the topic. While on the surface, a red-brown alliance or a Nazbol vortex may seem possible due to their shared opposition to liberalism, the problem lies in their fundamentally different approaches to critiquing liberalism. Communists, as I have extensively explained, critique the system for not going far enough and have an immanent dialectical critique of our current situation. On the other hand, the browns or Third Positionists have a completely different methodology in attacking liberalism. They possess an entirely different worldview rooted in distinct assumptions about human nature, metaphysics, ontology, and epistemology. Their goal is not to dialectically fulfill the bourgeois revolution but to negate it with something entirely different. Furthermore, their critique is not contingent on the existence of capitalism, whereas the communist critique would not be possible without the existence of capitalism, according to its own internal workings.

The vehement attacks by communists on the browns can be attributed to their understanding that the Third Position offers a radically different solution, one that is not rooted in capitalism, to escape our current paradigm. This challenges the inherent liberalism of the communists, which they cannot tolerate. Additionally, under a properly instituted Third Positionist regime, there can be no proletariat revolt against the bourgeoisie and, consequently, no communism. Class struggle would be replaced with class collaboration, with people united through some form of social mythos, which varies in each instantiation of Third Positionism. This renders the immanent dialectical critique only applicable through extensive rationalization and equating the Third Position with capitalism.

There is a reason why, time and time again, when debating with communists, they reveal their true colors and simply revert to liberalism. When you peel back all the propagandistic euphemisms, their entire worldview boils down to trying to outdo liberals at their own game without offering any philosophical alternative of their own. They fall into the System's Neatest Trick. We have tried the red-brown alliance in the 1930s, and we have attempted to reach out to Infrared. Every time we have extended our hand to make the Nazbol vortex a reality, we have been betrayed. So be it. We never needed them then, and we certainly do not need them now.