Send a Tweet
Most Popular Choices
Share on Facebook 7 Share on Twitter 2 Printer Friendly Page More Sharing
OpEdNews Op Eds    H4'ed 8/20/19

The Metaphysics of Revolution

By       (Page 1 of 1 pages)     (# of views)   2 comments
Author 512838
Follow Me on Twitter     Message Dan Corjescu

Chemical Algorave
Chemical Algorave
(Image by hellocatfood)
  Details   DMCA

Socrates was the first revolutionary. He opened up with a legendary oracular search the inner space from which the individual, as we understand him today, would eventually emerge. His "daemon" was that which spoke the necessary freedom and autonomy to become what we are. His was the first lesson.

His student, Plato, brought on the second movement. He postulated the availability of an ideal world accessible and open to a properly trained, disciplined mind. Truth was intelligible and its sighting in a flash of insight or through life-long questioning could and should change both the individual and his society. There were no limits to human malleability according to what was both universally natural and thus comprehensively reasonable. Both the revolutionary chance for a radical human transformation and its totalitarian inversion as ideology in the hands of power was born.

The third movement, as first noted by Hegel, was the advent of Christianity. Here the ideal world of the Greek was equipped with stern Hebraic commandments. The ideal world not only is; it is hierarchical, patriarchal, jealous and unforgiving. All are equal under its apocalyptic sky. Burn with sincere belief and entry into the kingdom of heaven is guaranteed. The seed of the revolutionary equality of all people was here first lain to forever explode the exclusivity of the polis and all other artificial divisions between men; ethnic, national, sexual or otherwise. Thus, the first drops of blood of the French Revolution were shed on the Cross.

The fourth movement, after more than a thousand years of veneration of pagan-christian icons known as saints, was the inner revolution within Christianity itself; the privatization of the relationship between man and God. The destruction of spiritual hierarchy. The loud inner silence of the conscience sacralized and weaponized within the sincere prayers of the heart. Protestantism against the de facto reigning powers of the earth in the name of the freedom of pure individual thought and feeling. The representatives of the ideal/God were impostors robbing the natural patrimony of the weak and of the powerless for an exemplary, righteous exodus to a New Jerusalem. The modern revolutionary springs forth from burning cathedrals, shattered stain glass, and the gouged-out eyes of the saints. God is for all and He is everywhere where I think and breath.

All this was the preliminary metaphysical scaffolding for the revolutionary mind over two thousand years. The fuse burned slowly, but it burned. Philosophy and religion were its handmaidens.

Enter science. Science brings the revolutionary development of the mind/spirit into material practice. It affords the tools for both material and spiritual transformation. It is the glowing hammer that actively molds our world and if in the 500 years since Bacon and Galileo we have only achieved power after power; the hammer itself cannot be called wise, the hand that moves it cannot be called self-directed, for it is still up to the whole man to enter the blinding parlors and dim antechambers of physics to declare their discoveries for a Nietzschean transvaluation of all values. The scientist cannot do this, only the revolutionary can. Through the twin legacies of both spirit and machine, the Western World breathed into the rest of humanity the spirit of restless change and desire for maximum freedom.

History declared itself, formally, for global humanity in the revolutions of 1776 and 1789. Here, History if it did not altogether stop, declared a significant pause in the long history of revolutionary consciousness. Representative democracy aged, putrefied, mutated, and exotically luxuriated into new forms of unfreedom, deception and control. Was this the fault of a historically necessary capitalist class eventually doomed to sow the seeds of its own destruction? The proletariat, that great Hegelian-Marxist capitalist antithesis, historically dissolved itself into a great sea of the middle class. Success! And the necessary historical end to all revolutionary experiment! The deranged and the disgruntled are to be put to eternal sleep! The great Neo-Aristotelian compromise of the dialectic was born; the middle will hold and stop the resolution of the Marxian dialectic from ever being born.

But it was always and ever to be a still birth. For the history of society is not a class struggle. Rather, it is the struggle of the individual to be most utterly himself in a world of hierarchy, in a world where control is in the hands of others. It is not capital and capitalists who structure this world although they surely do have influence. The black stain of unfreedom is much older than that. Indeed, it goes back millions of years as the readers of Frans de Waal may already be familiar. The animal in man, the desire for domination and power in all its forms over other men, is the true as-yet-unbreakable conundrum of history. The Machiavellian Prince and his natural political appetites and not an objectively historical ruling class is the true nefarious and unchanging figure in the affairs of men. Hunter-gatherer, ancient city-state, feudal lord, factory owner, Global CEO--it is not a self-conscious class that determines the action of domination, but the eternal will to power itself that precedes classes, nations, parties, and organizations of all kinds. It is Robert Michels' iron law of oligarchy and not Marxian economics that keeps us still firmly in our chains.

In this thirtieth year since the publication of Francis Fukuyama's The End of History, there are those, like Aaron Bastani, Bhaskar Sunkara, and Peter Frase (young men all), who dare to question the situation of today and dream of another world. If not exactly professional revolutionaries like Lenin, they struggle to keep the revolutionary idea alive. And this is all to the good.

Yet the question for today is, I think, are the by now classical concerns and concepts of both socialism and Marxism adequate to the particular historical moment that confronts us today? Does protest, opposition, and, even, yes, political violence have to necessarily emerge from the acute revolutionary observations of the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries in order to activate a critical mass of activists and revolutionaries today? Is capitalism still the enemy, truly? Or is hierarchy, in all spheres of life, the true oppressor? The division between ruled and ruling, not as a class phenomenon but as an existential way of being of man in the world since time immemorial. There are bosses everywhere. In schools, in jobs, in political parties, in cities, in nations in your home even. How can hierarchy be eroded, tamed, reformulated? How can individuals be empowered to live in an eventual Kingdom of Ends, where no one is treated as a means? What can be done to uncover and stop surreptitious power in all its forms? Does the revolutionary spirit of today cry out for a Kantian turn towards a practical unity of knowledge, freedom, respect, love, and individuality? Must we reach back before Marx and Hegel to go forward? We are the heirs of millennia of revolutionary metaphysical and material development, we can make the tomorrow of our own choosing.

 

Rate It | View Ratings

Dan Corjescu Social Media Pages: Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in       Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in       Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in       Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in

PhD in Continental Philosophy. Teach Political Philosophy at Zeppelin University Friedrichshafen, Germany.

Go To Commenting
The views expressed herein are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of this website or its editors.
Writers Guidelines
Contact AuthorContact Author Contact EditorContact Editor Author PageView Authors' Articles
Support OpEdNews

OpEdNews depends upon can't survive without your help.

If you value this article and the work of OpEdNews, please either Donate or Purchase a premium membership.

STAY IN THE KNOW
If you've enjoyed this, sign up for our daily or weekly newsletter to get lots of great progressive content.
Daily Weekly     OpEdNews Newsletter
Name
Email
   (Opens new browser window)
 

Most Popular Articles by this Author:     (View All Most Popular Articles by this Author)

The Metaphysics of Revolution

The End of Anarchy and The Solidification of the Global Class

Epstein, Faction, and Neopatrimonialism

The End of History: Thirty Years Later

Are We Fascist Yet?

Thinking About Fully Automated Luxury Communism

Comments

The time limit for entering new comments on this article has expired.

This limit can be removed. Our paid membership program is designed to give you many benefits, such as removing this time limit. To learn more, please click here.

2 people are discussing this page, with 2 comments


Arshad M Khan

Become a Fan
Author 500573

(Member since Nov 2, 2014), 5 fans, 144 articles, 1 quicklinks, 109 comments, 2 diaries
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

If Diderot gave us virtue without religion and Hegel informed us only the rational is real, then why does religion still exist? For an irrational world is a dangerous world as man's history shows.


You mention Bhaskar Sunkara, although in his pasta factory the workers are unlikely to spare wages to employ a philosopher. It leads to perhaps gratitude for the capitalist society paying for the comfortable sinecures of professors - yours and mine somewhat earlier.

Submitted on Tuesday, Aug 20, 2019 at 5:41:17 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

Dan Corjescu

Become a Fan
Author 512838

(Member since Jan 4, 2019), 13 articles, 9 comments
Not paid member and Facebook page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Twitter page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Linkedin page url on login Profile not filled in Not paid member and Instagram page url on login Profile not filled in


Add this Page to Facebook! Submit to Twitter Share on LinkedIn Submit to Reddit


  New Content

Religion's persistence is based on childlike question: why is there something rather than nothing? Physics can say "Quantum Negative Vacuum" but that is as annoyingly mystical for most people as saying "God" or "Shiva"; it is in fact just as astounding as any of these answers, if in theory, based on naturalist explanations which, in the end, cannot be definitively proven...so the answer to the question Why is there something rather than nothing; can and does still easily leave the door open to religious feelings and thoughts

Submitted on Tuesday, Aug 20, 2019 at 6:24:52 PM

Author 0
Add New Comment
Share Comment
Reply To This   Recommend  (0+)
Help
 

 
Want to post your own comment on this Article? Post Comment