14-11-2015: vampire belt (detroit)

their music:
http://www.cor-sano.com/vampirebelt/

vlog for the day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23UboXAEw60

review:
http://dghjdfsghkrdghdgja.appspot.com/categories/shows/2015/11/14.html

these are my notes to the 1892 introduction of socialism: scientific and utopian. the introduction is sometimes split into it's own text, and given the title of on historical materialism.

===

this cursory delve into the mainstream philosophical questions of the day aside, the text is actually primarily a brief history lesson. it places the three major battles of the bourgeoisie against the aristocracy within the context of the english and continental approaches to religion. central to marxist history is, of course, the idea of class struggle, particularly between three classes: the aristocracy, the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. also keep in mind that the purpose of religion within a marxist framework is, of course, to control the population....

the first battle between the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie was the reformation. marx keys in on two of the many reformers, luther and calvin, in order to contrast what happened in england with what happened in germany. in germany, the aristocracy won handily; lutheranism became, like roman christianity, a deeply feudal religion. calvin, on the other hand, produced republican movements in holland, scotland and england, the latter of which led to the second struggle, the "glorious revolution". this "glorious" revolution, however, was somewhat of a failure; the english aristocracy had actually defeated the upstart bourgeoisie, placed it back under its own subservience and left it in philosophical ignorance. enlightened philosophies such as materialism continued to be hoarded by the aristocracy; the bourgeoisie languished in the ignorance of christianity. on the continent, however, materialism flourished and with it came the third battle, the french revolution. according to engels, the french revolution was the first time that the bourgeoisie successfully usurped power from the aristocracy (for a brief time).

while the french revolution was occurring in france, the industrial revolution was occurring in england. by definition, the primary beneficiaries of the industrial revolution would be the english bourgeoisie, who finally saw their power eclipse the aristocracy - through peaceful, financial means and not through violent class struggle. the bourgeoisie then used that newfound financial power to gain political power by passing bills through parliament, such as the reform act. in other words, they legislated themselves into power; however, they were never able to push the aristocracy out of power. a second conclusion of the industrial revolution was the creation of a new class, the proletariat, which began for the first time to organize politically through the creation of new parties, such as the chartists in england. all of that led to the first uprisings of the proletariat, in 1848, which were crushed not by the bourgeoisie but by the aristocracy. interestingly, engels notes that the british aristocracy responded to these uprisings by increasing funding for religious proselytization across the country side.

the years after 1848 saw increasing unrest amongst the proletariat throughout europe, especially in germany. again, engels points out that the bourgeoisie and aristocracy came to the common conclusion that, in order to prevent the "destruction of society", the working class must be evangelized. in england, no such approach was necessary because the british aristocracy had already spent lavishly on maintaining a religious proletariat and bourgeoisie; engels comes to his key statement of the essay while discussing this,

They had come to grief with materialism. "Die Religionmuss dem Volk erhalten werden" — religion must be kept alive for the people — that was the only and the last means to save society from utter ruin. Unfortunately for themselves, they did not find this out until they had done their level best to break up religion for ever. And now it was the turn of the British bourgeoisie to sneer and to say: "Why, you fools, I could have told you that 200 years ago!"

engels ends the essay by deducing that germany, not england, will be the scene of the first proletarian revolution.

====

now, this is not to specifically endorse the marxist position, so much to point out that marx would actually agree with you.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=44vzMNG2fZc

the correct marxist analysis of the situation is that the elite have determined that if white people will no longer submit to religion, they must be replaced by people who will - or society will "collapse" into communism.

or, to put it another way: white people make shitty slaves.

the way for leftists to address this is through continuing to actively fight against religion through persuasion. that is, to take the position of a dawkins or a hitchens in trying to win the intellectual battle. a true leftist would not see these artificial boundaries of nation-states and seek to erect walls; they would see the struggle against religion as global, and take the opportunity to combat it when it's in front of them. the most important lesson the left ought to have learned from the 20th century is that communism cannot be local to be effective.

13-11-2015: paris attacks & fearing the inevitability of facing the mixer