The following quote is from the ‘Marx & Satan’ of Richard Wurmbrand, the Romanian Priest-Dissident of the Soviet epoch:
Marx, it is said, was deeply humane. He was dominated by one idea: how to help the exploited masses. What impoverishes them, he maintained, is capitalism. Once this rotten system is overthrown after a transitional period of dictatorship of the proletariat, a society will emerge in which everyone will work according to his abilities in factories and farms belonging to the collective, and will be rewarded according to his needs. There will be no state to rule over the individual, no wars, no revolution, only an everlasting, universal brotherhood.
Interestingly enough, this quote actually serves to discredit some of the worst aspects of ‘bourgeois liberal’ ideology and metaphysics. Here, the future Utopia is a materially impossible and logically inconceivable synthesis of Libertine Anarchism and Authoritarian Hegemony. On the one hand, every individual person is regulated, down to their uttermost THOUGHT….
(The fabled ‘Unity of Humanity,’ a domination that can only be achieved by brute force comparable to the Nazis on the Soviets, except that it must be on a inconceivably larger scale even that this)…
And on the other hand, every person is given absolute ‘freedom’ to exploit and abuse. I assume that absolute freedom is nothing other than absolute freedom; including for those who in earlier ages of history were (and still are) rightly condemned as sex offenders. Presumably, sexual liberty is to extend well beyond the liberal ideal of consenting adults: to include minors, animals, even corpses.
For, as is always the case among collectivists and authoritarians: To refuse is to rob. For them, the good of Humanity must not be questioned; while, by fairly obvious contrast, the good of people is of no consequence whatsoever.
Lessons to draw from this (firstly, on a general level):
- Authoritarianism implies absolute liberty for the privileged, while excessive libertarianism results in the annihilation of libertarianism (liberty becomes license, even tyranny. Just look at NAMBLA, as well as the ideal of pedophile marriage in a proportion of religious circles!)
- Marx, to quote a certain wily Teutonic savant, was: ‘bourgeois, all too bourgeois.’ If scholars and intellectuals more broadly (in the non-disparaging sense of ‘intellectuals’) from Beijing to Boston, from London to Lyon, are to give a more serious account of Marxism, then they must surely not gloss over the bourgeois mediocrity and idle, speculatory cowardice of a great deal of his corpus… lest his corpus become a corpse! (But why, then, not kill the Father, in order that one may scrabble among his ruins?)
Secondly, what relevance might all this have to the Israel/Palestine dispute?
Ultimately, the counterfeit universality and purportedly boundless hegemony of global institutions should indeed be called into question; and no less so, the subtle authoritarianism of a unified ‘Humanity’ that includes everyone and non-one.
Let it not be fudged or obfuscated by any means: UN resolutions are not from ‘the International Community,’ but from a selection of individual states, whose delegates cannot even represent all their citizens, let alone the entire world.
This being so, shall there ever be the merest hope of an everlasting, universal brotherhood?
Or is all that merely to be recognized for what it undoubtedly is and ever more shall be: a classic specimen of privileged ‘bourgeois decency,’ of finely feeble fancy and highminded cant, serving to cynically conceal the intrinsically anarchistic and partisan character of global politics…
Which is as much as to say, universal ‘Realpolitik?’
Of course, the notion of an anarchic world order easily appear discredited by the actions of neoconservatives. But if this is so, why not seek a more realistic and less Utopian vision of global anarchism than the neoconservatives, or even than self-styled ‘IR Realists,’ with their unconvincing ‘bourgeois metaphysics’ of ‘the national interest,’ as distinguished from (indeed, as fully irreconcilable with!) the needs, desires and wellbeings of human individuals?
The National Interest, the Good of Humanity, the Inalienable Rights and Prerogative of the X race, the Ethnicity Y, the idiotic final, fulsome-emptily-fulminating terminus of Global Village Z-and-Zero…
Who can believe in such nonsense in this disenchanted age?
In any disenchanted age?
(For every age, after all, is disenchanted in its own way).
As I have argued before, the prospect of a ‘Solution’ of the Israel/Palestine dispute is likely a material and logical impossibility. However, a practical, fragile modus vivendi may be more of a possibility.
Look at the example of Northern Ireland. There never has been, nor never will be, any conclusive ‘solution’ to the problem of Irish Republican and British Loyalist violence, in the sense of rendering it impossible (and impossible with full certainty!) that the atrocities of the past will never return. However, it may be possible (‘in principle…’) to eternally defer such an hour of reckoning.
Is this not something worth considering for Israelis and Palestinians?
And is it not a worthwhile pursuit for the human species more broadly?
An ‘everlasting, universal brotherhood,’ either at state level or on the level of the planet, is clearly a cynically ideological enticement used by radical ideologues, violent extremists, authoritarian brutes.
Do not be fooled by the silky smoothness of their velvet gloves, or the dark, seductive glossiness of their top hats.
The assassin walks among you, and among each one of us.
And some of his confederates-in-disarmlines are respectable good burghers of this One True Great and Gleesome Global Village.
Do not be a fool. Like ten thousands times ten thousands have been a fool before you.
And many, many thousands…