FROM MARXISM TO GLOBALISM PART II

So far we have tried to establish that what has come to be known as Marxism has always existed in several forms. Proper Marxism as such is in its essence anti-capitalism and pro-socialism, far closer to statism than what its disingenuous claim about the eventual abolition of state seems to suggest to the contrary. In that sense, Soviet institutional statism was a far more authentic representation of Marxism than Bakunin’s anarchistic model, which had merely been a call for an anti-capitalist revolution consistently realized in Lenin’s revolutionary statism. Although ostensibly professing internationalism, this Marxism at its core had never precluded nationalism, as the later Soviet anti-Trotskyite conception of a victory of socialism in one country had sufficiently demonstrated.

But the other version of Marxism, not particularly attributable to Marx ( whose Communist Manifesto was not exactly Marxist literature, but more likely a work for hire, over which he and Engels would immediately lose authorship rights and any kind of control), stressed internationalism far more than it stressed Marx’s anti-capitalism, and in fact it was not all that hostile to capitalism at all, as it was totally antagonistic to all forms of nationalism. I would go so far as to suggest that the modern doctrine of globalism is the most natural offshoot of that internationalist version of “Marxism,” and as such globalism has a lot in common with Trotskyism, especially considering the fact that the main proponents of globalism, the “neoconservatives,” have their roots in, and their ideological sympathies with, classic Trotskyism.

Now we are ready to take a leap forward to our time. As we are looking at the emergence of the Globalist theory, in its most recent form, in the United States, some striking similarities between Globalism and the original European version of Marxism cannot be missed, as I noted before, especially with regard to their central point of seeing nationalism as their enemy, and their offered solution of internationalization. Now, how is this so-called internationalism supposed to triumph over the most natural form of a nation’s self-expression as a nation: nationalism? But of course: “It’s the economy, stupid!” Modern Globalists see the world as one giant economic market, where the economic power reigns supreme, overriding all national barriers and borders. National differences no longer matter, because “The Will” to economic prosperity has become the dominant common denominator. Money solves all problems and cures all ills. Just give them enough money, and they will behave!

This emphasis on the power of money, and its presumption of greed, puts Globalism on a collision course with religious belief, particularly, with Christianity. The Scriptures are unequivocal on this subject: “May your money perish with you, because you thought you could buy the Gift of God with money.” (Acts 8:20)

But, in today’s America, it seems that hardly anybody is aware of this basic moral incompatibility between the ethics of globalism and the ethics of Christianity. As if the two totally contradictory moralities can just get along, like everybody is supposed to get along with each other, so that all contradiction, all conflict, all incompatibility can be abolished by a mutual agreement of silence and complaisance of "civic" society, and thus achieve freedom from fear and unpleasantness by this beautiful social fiat.

But globalism, as an ideology, cannot be reconciled with Christianity, and by its close association with its parental host capitalism, gives the latter a bad name, as an immoral social system. It is therefore the main reason why the defenders of capitalism, instead of seeing its amorality, that is, its placement outside direct and general moral valuation, are trying to defend it by exactly the worst weapon they could choose, that of ethical valuation, and by touting capitalism as an ethically-positive economic system, they deny their ward its best and only defense which is that it is actually neither good nor bad, and are thus rendering it helplessly vulnerable and totally indefensible to the ethical charges of immorality, as well as putting it on an inevitable collision course with the ethics of Christianity, that one cannot avoid by silence and dismissal of argument, as this subject, even grossly neglected and disfigured, cannot go away.