Marxian myth: "determination ‘in the last instance’ by the economy"

For example read this essay by Louis Althusser from 1962. Althusser's essay relates to the relationship between superstructure (ideas, ideologies, and institutions producing such) and the base. We can call the 'base' the economy if we want to (as Marxists do) but it really refers to the material base, as it relates to an ideological superstructure. It seems Althusser, and many Marxists, believed this base was determinant. Not always; but always in the 'last instance'. This belief is a facet of Marxian materialism; Marx famously called himself a materialist, to counter-pose his ideas against the establishment; with their faith in traditional institutions such as religion, family, law, philosophy and education; aspects which Marx might claim to be ideological.

I'd argue this is a false understanding of how Marxists really see the human condition. Dont't take a Marxist at face value; by what they say. Judge them on what they do. For Marxists, politics is determinant; in the first and last instance. Seen Engels: 'The Role of Force in History', 1887. I believe this paradox of the chicken versus egg (what is determinat - ideas or material existance?). The Marxian myth of "determination ‘in the last instance’ by the economy" is simply a rule for prioritising matter; and so, justifying calling oneself a 'materialist'.

Fascist | NAZI

History:

The term "Fascism" was first used in 1915 by members of Mussolini's movement, the Fasces of Revolutionary Action. Mussolini having just been expelled from the PSI { Italian Socialist Party } because he supported world war one, WW1.

In his 1916 book in Germany, Johann Plenge replaced the "ideas of 1789" [rights of man, democracy, individualism and liberalism] of the French Revolution, with the "ideas of 1914": duty, discipline, law and order, which he argued were the basis for "National Socialism".

The German Workers' Party, DAP, began in 1919 (5th Jan), less than 2 months after WW1 ended. In July 1919, Hitler, still in the German Army, was appointed intelligence agent in a reconnaissance commando unit of the German Army to influence other soldiers and to investigate the DAP. Hitler joined the DAP in late autumn 1919 as its 55th member. He quickly became the Party's most influential speaker bringing thousands to its ranks, and months after he joined, on 24 Feb 2020, the DAP renamed itself: the National Socialist German Workers' Party (NSDAP).

In the German case, it's fair to say the NSDAP (Nazi Party) was created to draw workers away from communism and into völkisch nationalism. For example: before it was renamed to "National Socialist German Workers' Party", Hitler had suggested the "Social Revolutionary Party" - entirely dropping "socialism"!

In the early 1930s NAZIs and German Communists (KPD - controlled by Russia) cooperated together against the largest socialist party in Germany: the SPD, who, back then, were the largest Marxist party outside Russia and consistently the most popular party in German federal elections from 1890 onward. Back then, the Soviet Russia rountinely termed every Labour or Social Democrat Party not under its control "social fascists". Likewise so did the Stalinist Communist Parties it controlled. The Nazi - KPD cooperation ended in 1932. Immediately afterward, the KPD created Anti-Fa.

Comment:

The difference between Fascism, and Communism was centred on their attitude to Nationalism. Nationalism is key to Fascism, but, in theory, is downplayed by Communism in favour of 'internationalism'. Yet in practice, communists in power have often discriminated against certain ethnicities or nationalisms; in favour of their favoured ones.

In the Italian and German cases Fascism began as a new kind of socialism, with explicit anti-Capitalist ideas. Therefore, calling any non-socialist, liberal or pro-Capitalist a "Fascist" is dishonest slander.

Evil

I wrote this in response to Colin Wright's post: Understanding ‘Evil’

Colin bemoans the theistic application of good versus evil; but admits in the end that some ideas are so bad as to be 'evil'. We can't get rid of the word 'good', because there's no suitable alternative. 'Evil' is something else. In addition to the its theistic use; there's the problem of binary thinking and how the duality of good/evil force us into that mindset; which is, actually, a trap for both sides! This then leads to a kind of fanaticism; which even liberals and middle to the road political types can suffer from. So: there's more than one rationale to be against the word 'evil'.

But: 1. Can we rid ourselves of the word 'evil'?

I guess we can, but we just end up using synonyms which have the same effect. Synonyms such as fascist, climate denier, flat earther, communist, Tory 'scum', TERF, racist, Trumpist. The particular dehumanization used depends on one's politics. So we can rid ourselves of evil; but not really. The left own more of these synonyms than the right.

If not, then: 2. When should we use the word 'evil' in politics?

I can call something 'evil' when I disagree so fundamentally with a policy or idea that no negotiation is possible. I can never concede that a person has a real homunculus inside their head telling them that their authentic gender is not their biological sex. I've seen where that idea leads. It leads to doctors associations (such as the U.S. AAP) mandating ONLY one line of treatment for gender dysphoria; demonising therapy and counselling as 'conversion therapy', and lobbying to change U.S. federal law to mandate 'affirmation' as the ONLY allowed response to transgender ideas; leading to hormone blockers, hormones and surgery. I am not negotiating with them. They are wrong. Their idea is evil.

Nor can I negotiate with climate alarmists, not anyone who promotes the idea of the greenhouse gas effect. As shown elsewhere, the greenhouse gas effect is wrong. It leads to harmful, anti-human polices such as net zero. It's already cost the world at least $2 trillion. It is an evil idea. Those promoting it will not debate it. They explicitly refuse to debate; much like transgender fanatics. I think we have a clue as to what evil is here.

I won't negotiate with them. They won't negotiate with me. Surely I'm just their mirror; lost in binary thinking? No. I will debate them. They won't debate me. Even when I'm with the strongest side I will always debate; because I'm a democrat, anti-elitist, and I believe I know how to debate without throwing stones.

Conclusion: we should not call people evil. Their deeds and ideas may be evil but they, themselves, are potentially redeemable. If that's the residual Christian speaking in me then so be it.