The concept of a self-driving materialist teleological progress in history was introduced by Marx, based on Hegel.
This was a false interpretation of history, but one which was convenient to the neo-feudalists, or ruling oligarchy.
So-called capitalism as a successor to feudalism (as in the Marxian narrative) never happened.
The socio-historical and cultural phenomenon known as the Renaissance was the actual successor to feudalism. The Renaissance was the true post-feudalism. The political manifestation of the Renaissance was the Renaissance state, best exemplified by the France of Louis XI, the England of Henry VII and the Spain of Ferdinand and Isabella, reaching its zenith with the Peace of Westphalia.
The Counter-Renaissance followed the Renaissance, a socio-historical, cultural and historical phenomenon best exemplified by Sarpi’s Venice, the Dutch Republic and England under William of Orange following the 1688 Dutch invasion.
The Counter-Renaissance re-established feudalism, or a neo-feudalism, which was an amalgam of the feudal interests that had served Spinoza’s free-trading progenitors well, but which the Renaissance and the rise ofthe Renaissance state had resticted. This was the pre-Renaissance milieu to which Spinoza as a Marrano Jew had wished to return. This was the neo-feudal future for which he provided the underpinning philosophy, which was based on Luria’s Kabbalah of exile and return.
The outcomes of the so-called Glorious Revolution and the French Revolution were no teleological advance. This was not a shift from feudalism to capitalism. Rather they marked a metamorphosised return to pre-Renaissance feudalism, establishing new ways in which to extract and share the surplus produced by the producer-class, not through serfdom, but rather through the wages system, central banking and taxation.
If the pre-Renaissance exploiters operated in a monetary economy that existed in parallel to a world ruled over by kings and princes, then following the French revolution, economics as monetary accounting moved to centre-stage.
The state and state trappings of kings, princes, presidents and parliaments were co-opted as the guarantors, not of a feudal hierarchy, but of central banking, taxation and debt collection by means of force. This was the system first established in Venice, then later in the Netherlands, Britain, France and the USA. This was Sarpi’s ‘Republick of Merchants’ writ large. The pressure to extend this system has resulted in constant geo-political upheaval over the past two and a half centuries to this day.
Capitalism - a pejorative term used by socialists in the nineteenth century - was a myth perpetrated by Marx. It was not a new and progressive economic phenomenon. However, the myth gave the neo-feudalists a controlled opposition - controlled philosophically and politically. Through a controlled radicalism, the workers were led to oppose a straw man - the capitalist class - with the promise that the next and inevitable stage in history would mean the overthrow of that class and result in freedom from exploitation.
So what is Marxism masking? Answer the old Lombards’ private monopoly on nothing less than public debt and public credit, which implies an extension of this monopoly to control over public revenues and issuance of currency.
It masks a controlled central banking system with monopoly powers over the wider banking system, a power which, unless broken by government, becomes a political power which is greater than government.
It masks the fact that both the capitalist entrepreneurs as well as the state are subsumed under feudal usury.
As in all ages, the surplus is produced at the point of production. The question as always is, how is that surplus extracted and where does it end up?
It is extracted through a neo-feudalist usury that again, as in all ages, has no respect for borders or other barriers to its operation.
Marx in fact endorsed the subjugation of the straw man capitalists and presented this state of affairs as an historical necessity that was generated by the capitalists’ own overthrow of feudalism. But Marx’s presentation of a progression was, in fact, masking a process of return.
Marxism thus became the political and philosophical arm of the neo-feudalist financial globalisers.
Marxism is the basis of all the so-called Left and Right political and philosophical creeds of our time. Anarchism, liberalism, libertarianism, neo-conservatism and Marxism itself are all rooted ultimately in Spinozism and Kabbalism, and all serve to promote Tikkun.
© John Dunn.