Midwestern Marx and patriotic "socialism" [07/04/24]

i have a reoccurring joke among my friends and family where i'll respond to any ridiculous statement that someone has said with « i've been saying this for years now, » so it's feels a little silly using saying it seriously, but i dead-ass have been saying for 2+ years that this trend patriotic "socialism" is fascist at its very core - and very recently it has been rearing its ugly head. while it's certainly easy for people to take a look at figures like Adam "Haz Infrared" or Jackson Hinkle and see them for the fascist clowns they are, it becomes a lot more difficult to identify the more subtle reactionary tendencies that use the guise of marxism to take root - hence why i feel the importance to investigate Midwestern Marx and how what started as more subtle errors overtime devolved into full blown anti-marxism.

the rapprochement of MWM to the patriotic "socialist" sphere has been very noticeable : at first, these accusations of concession to Infrared and the catering to the sensibilities of Infrared were totally denied by Eddie Liger and co., citing that they heavily disagreed with the political lines of Haz and Hinkle, but nonetheless found « meaningful and comradely debate » to be important to uphold. so they continued to discuss with the two, and continued to welcome the Infrared reactionaries into their MWM family, and inch by inch, the organisation conceded to and catered to these reactionaries. fast forward to now, and now Infrared and "MAGA communism" are celebrated as the « advanced guard of the revolutionary movement, » hosting interviews with Haz and Hinkle and fully aligning themselves with MAGA communism !

it's easy to put the blame on Infrared - to say that they corrupted MWM from the outside, infiltrating it and ripping it from marxism ; but at the end of the day, that kind of rupture from marxism can't occur unless there is a foundational ideological error underlying MWM's original line that, when pursued to its logical conclusion, leads to a rupture from marxism. and, like many deviations, begins with Lassalle.

this fucker is going to haunt marxism until its end, wont he ?

[my honest reaction]

at the heart of MWM's capitulation to reaction lies bourgeois nationalism, and to illustrate this point a little better, i'll quote Marx's Critique of the Gotha Programme at length here :

« It is altogether self-evident that, to be able to fight at all, the working class must organize itself at home as a class and that its own country is the immediate arena of its struggle – insofar as its class struggle is national, not in substance, but, as the Communist Manifesto says, "in form". But the "framework of the present-day national state", for instance, the German Empire, is itself, in its turn, economically "within the framework" of the world market, politically "within the framework" of the system of states. Every businessman knows that German trade is at the same time foreign trade, and the greatness of Herr Bismarck consists, to be sure, precisely in his pursuing a kind of international policy.

« And to what does the German Workers' party reduce its internationalism? To the consciousness that the result of its efforts will be "the international brotherhood of peoples" – a phrase borrowed from the bourgeois League of Peace and Freedom, which is intended to pass as equivalent to the international brotherhood of working classes in the joint struggle against the ruling classes and their governments. Not a word, therefore, about the international functions of the German working class! And it is thus that it is to challenge its own bourgeoisie – which is already linked up in brotherhood against it with the bourgeois of all other countries – and Herr Bismarck's international policy of conspiracy. »

the crux of what Marx is outlining here is that proletarian internationalism is internationalist in its content (i.e. it upholds the interests of the working class of all countries over any single country), but the struggle for said internationalism,initially, takes on a national form (hence « [the working class'] own country is the immediate arena of its struggle. ») 

so how does MWM break from this proletarian internationalism ? simply put, the internationalism they put forth is internationalist in form, but nationalist in content. Eddie Liger and co. have repeatedly stated that their socialism is first and foremost based upon « patriotism » and « love for their country and its history » over, say, critique of political economy. on their website, Mr. Liger firstly proclaims that U.S. workers should uphold the 1776 bourgeois rebellion against Britain, due to it being "anti-colonial" (i honestly don't know whether to laugh or cry at that notion =_=) and  « laying the foundational national ideals and values that U.S. marxists must adhere to and fulfil to their fullest extent. »

[passage from MWM website written by Eddie Liger]

apparently, the guiding principles of socialism with american characteristics are bourgeois equal right and the aim of socialism with american characteristics is the expansion of bourgeois rhetoric of freedom ! 

MWM arrives at this conclusion through the obfuscation of the class character of the U.S. throughout its history ; instead of analysing U.S. historical development as a class dictatorship of the bourgeoisie with its development contingent on the colonial and imperialist interests of said bourgeois national project, they present it as the proclamation of "great, transcendental values of rights and freedoms" that, somewhere down the line, were perverted and corrupted by the development of finance capitalist "parasites," which now holds the nation hostage (keep note of this). « yes, » they say, « the U.S. has done many bad things, but alongside it there are good things that the U.S. did - therefore we must be patriots. » this is not historical materialism - it's vulgar and idealist bourgeois moralism that any liberal or fascist could spout in just as much right.

[passage from MWM website written by Eddie Liger]

they assert that the U.S. is unique in its class struggle, and that socialism « leads... the people towards a greater, more united way of being us » in a national struggle against the parasites within the nation and to « stand up and take this country back. » they then quote the famous proletarian revolutionary Abraham Lincoln by stating that american socialism is « by the people, of the people, for the people. »

MWM's american nationalism not only precedes their american socialism - it's precisely what informs it. this is concerning in that : 1) it is a serious break from marxist proletarian internationalism, and 2) it replicates the U.S. bourgeois conception of history, and thus reproduces the ideological tendencies of U.S. bourgeois nationalism. the degree to which MWM is internationalist is the same way in which the lassalleans were internationalists in their proposal of an « international brotherhood of peoples, » separate and patriotic but "respectful of the other peoples' nationalism."

-----

what does this break from proletarian internationalism mean ? in short, an inevitable and total rupture from marxism. this is evident by their claims that the industrial working class « doesn't exist anymore and thus does not warrant immediate critique » and their open alliance with the MAGA movement (reminiscent of a certain Georges Sorel). but the most concerning development in their nationalist tailism is their recent preoccupation with "finance capital."

finance capital, as marxists understand it, is the fusion of monopoly industrial capital and monopoly banking capital through the centralisation of capital. this is plain and simple.

MWM - and Mr. Liger in particular - seem to have a particular fixation with this finance capital, however, and not in the way that a marxist should be fixated on it. marxists understand the global strata of finance capital as the driving force of international capitalism, of imperialism, and our aim in combating it is fundamentally based in proletarian internationalism. but what happens if you're against the global dominance of finance capital from the standpoint of bourgeois nationalism ? 

the results are not shocking. 

the "questions" in question, posed by reactionary commentator Candice Owens, of course refers to her remarks on the existence of a pervasive global jewish cabal, of jews drinking the blood of christian babies and the conducting of "satanic attacks" against christians and of jews "serving money over god."

that last remark, of "jews serving money first and foremost," puts a lot of MWM's comments on finance capital into a different light. the dichotomisation of "jewish workers" and "finance capital" - insinuating that finance capital is in effect jewish capital - is probably the most indicative piece of information here that Mr. Liger would like everyone to forget, because it really doesn't look good on his claims to being a marxist. his commentaries on finance capital by and large are not from the standpoint of marxist proletarian internationalism, following the analytic method of historical materialism, but rather seem fixed on this moralisation of finance capital, portraying it as a parasite upon the american nation. when you read MWM's of finance capital as jewish capital, suddenly things start clicking into place. 

what may be the most damning piece of evidence against MWM, with the given context, is the tweet below :

the fact that MWM does not actually identify the U.S. ruling class, but rather leaves the question open really doesn't help their case.

another thing to note is the specific way in which MWM uses the term "people" here. it's an interesting choice for a marxist to not use the term "working class" or "proletariat" in this context, considering that the U.S. national bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeoisie also technically fall under the category of "the people" of america. the choice of invoking the notion of debt specifically, alluding to the idea of usury, is also interesting. 

what ties it all together is the idea that what guides american socialism is « a deep love of the people » ; that this vague ruling class « [has] no love for the people, » directly and consciously controlling the people in the way a puppeteer controls a puppet, and that american socialism is « a society by, of and for the people. » it's already been established that Eddie's socialism isn't informed by critique of political economy but by bourgeois nationalism - but that particular use of the notion of "the people" deserves some inspection.

in german, there are a few words that can correspond to the idea of people. Leute corresponds to an informal generalisation of the idea of people ; Leute though, doesn't fit with the sense that MWM is using "the people." Mensch corresponds to individual persons, and in its plural form - Menschen - can refer to multiple individuals ; but neither of these really fit MWM's use of "the people" either.

what MWM is referring to by "the people" is people as a nation - it is referring to the collectivity of the people, unified under the banner of a nation. it just so happens that german has a particular word for this concept too : Volk.

it just so happens that nationalist-oriented socialist thinkers within Germany orated extensively on the topic, which it would do good to quote at length here :  

 « 'National' and 'social' are two identical conceptions. It was only the Jew who succeeded, through falsifying the social idea and turning it into Marxism, not only in divorcing the social idea from the national, but in actually representing them as utterly contradictory. That aim he has in fact achieved. At the founding of this movement we formed the decision that we would give expression to this idea of ours of the identity of the two conceptions: despite all warnings, on the basis of what we had come to believe, on the basis of the sincerity of our will, we christened it 'National Socialist.' We said to ourselves that to be 'national' means above everything to act with a boundless and all-embracing love for the people [das Volk] and, if necessary, eve to die for it. And similarly to be 'social' means so to build up the State and the community of the people that every individual acts in the interest of the community of the people and must be to such an extent convinced of the goodness, of the honorable straightforwardness of this community of the people as to be ready to die for it. » [emphasis added]

this particular passage is from a speech delivered in Munich on April 12, 1922 by Adolf Hitler. 

Herr Liger and co. speak intensively of american socialism as the movement for which they fight for. any marxist should know that socialism has no country, for it serves and advances the interests of the international proletariat above all national interests. regardless of whether you uphold Joseph Stalin or not, i think any seasoned marxist would agree with the sentiments of his dialogue with the communist party of China's delegation on July 11, 1949 :

« You speak of Sinified socialism. There is nothing of the sort in nature. There is no Russian, English, French, German, Italian socialism, as much as there is no Chinese socialism. There is only one [marxist] socialism... 

« If you understand this everything with the building of socialism in China will be fine. If you won’t you will do great harm to the international communist movement. As far as I know in the CPC there is a thin layer of the proletariat and the nationalist sentiments are very strong and if you will not conduct genuinely [marxist] class policies and not conduct struggle against bourgeois nationalism, the nationalists will strangle you. Then not only will socialist construction be terminated, China may become a dangerous toy in the hands of American imperialists. »

Herr Liger and the rest of MWM have completely embraced american bourgeois nationalism and abandoned the core of marxism. the foundations of this american socialism is a blind patriotism first and foremost, completely revising the colonial bourgeois character of the U.S. in favour of nationalist idealism. this american socialism which they advance explicitly rejects the principle of proletarian internationalism and replaces it with the pursuit of a unique, socialism based on the uplifting of the morally righteous american Volk and the liquidation of the "corrupt parasitism" of (((finance capital's))) grip on the american nation. this american socialism seeks to accomplish this through allying with the most reactionary segments of the U.S. petty-bourgeoisie and national industrial bourgeoisie, completely capitulating their ideology to bourgeois reaction and offering it substantial funding and aiding it's rise to power. 

when the veil of formal appeals to the names of Marx, Engels and Lenin is lifted, it becomes clear that MWM's american socialism is ultimately just an american appropriation of national socialism.