Discover more from Moneycircus
Marx's Monumental Error
Titan's shortcomings can help to see The Great Reset more clearly
Oct 24, 2021
Monumentalism is the style of sculpture that celebrates Marx. Supposedly grand and sweeping, it often has quite the opposite impact: squat and bulbous. Statues to Lenin generally tower over the square, tall and a little too lean. Marx is considerable. I can think of only one statue in Moscow that compares and that is an unfortunate cast of Tolstoy, off Zubovsky Bulvar, that looks like he's squatting in the privy.
I once had a considerable basset hound. She had the same broad shoulders and jowls. Puff out your chest, lower your voice, let your gullet resonate and wobble your chops, double chin safely hidden beneath barbe, and pronounce: Considerable.
Joking aside, few writers are accorded sculptures in the monumental style of Marx. Why do we need to be told how great he is? Medium meet message. Marx is transactional: thought as purpose or praxis. Thus he becomes commodity and we are entitled to ask, who's selling?
Other great influences upon civilization have shed their light without the need of marble and brass to obscure the sun. This is a trait of communist leaders, this love of towering statues, hand outstretched, casting upon the public square a shadow like a sundial, as if they command the seasons.
Marx's material enormity is supposed to represent the people's triumph in ownership of the means of production. As Daren Allen writes in Goodbye Mr Marx, the reality of servitude for the factory or clerical worker remains unchanged, regardless in whose name the guardians claim to manage. 
In fact, I would argue, centrally planned economies make things worse, because they encourage work towards managed outcomes. This removes the sliver of sunlight that gives hope to the proletarian that he may one day discover or invent something that lifts him out of his drudgery. In the world of outcomes management his actions are forever directed by a technocratic functionary class.
The rise of the corporation was another feature that Marx overlooked. This would put the company on a legal par with individuals — gaining freedom of action and rights of redress but without moral constraints. This created a new beast that fatally gores Marx’s expectations that the technocratic state would wither away.
Marx should have spotted this. He was writing during the key phase of the corporatization of industry, which repurposed laws that had been passed for the protection of newly-freed American slaves in the 1860s.
Having gained parity with the individual, the corporation assumed a sociopathic hegemony, further cornering the individual’s options. After Marx’s death, the corporations began to form tax-evading foundations that amplified their power to shape social policy. The result, for the worker, was Organization Man, as described by William Whyte in 1956.
The corporation had laid its foundations in the East India Company founded in 1600 and America was literally settled by corporations, as Tyler Halloran notes. 
It was impossible for Marx to envisage micro-electronics but he was perfectly capable of seeing the emergence of a technocratic specialist class that was underway during his lifetime: the massive demographic shifts as chartered companies exploited the new world; populating of the Americas by slaving companies; the global reach of mining consortia extracting minerals and ores as well as diamonds; the triangular trade that took sugar and cotton to Europe and textiles and manufactured goods to the rest of the world.
Marx may have overlooked the emerging technocracy, but they saw nothing untoward in him. He postulated the grand shaping of history by actors, who might be corporations (private or publicly-owned) in combination with the state, whose interests extended only to the city-dwelling, educated proletariat that was able — and willing, through mental reframing — to serve the state-corporatist interest. And that elevates the technocratic elite, whatever name you give them.
Cecil Rhodes was born 35 years after Marx and worked closely with the Rothschild diamond interests who carried on Rhodes' legacy after his death, 19 years after Marx. Rhodes personified the British imperial project — at least that was his narrative.
With hindsight we know, from Bünting's Cloverleaf Map of 1581, through the Baghdad-Berlin railway to the involvement of Kim Philby’s grandfather in preparing the Russian putsch and the British meddling in Arabia, to the toppling of Mossadegh and multiple Iraqi, Afghan adventures to the age of the Eurasian Customs Union and Belt and Road, there is a close relation between short term shocks and long-term plans. Organic and grassroots is the exception not the rule.
Banking interests such as those behind Rhodes were to play the key role in bringing about WWI, which was a trigger for toppling the Tsar. The same interests financed Trotsky and Lenin on their path to implement Marx's narrow definition of state and economic imperative.
Those imperatives suited just fine corporations, banks and The Investors who represented the new fortunes that were rapidly supplanting the old.
Arcs of narrative
We write narratives to spur our actions and, as Joseph Campbell told us, they shape our lives in very real ways. What became Progressivism is to large extent the political expression of the rising power of new money, the self-justification of progress as defined by finance capital. It is not so much an ideology as a collection of scientific-technical tools to shape the planet in ways that serve new money: managing population in terms of numbers, geographic distribution, intellectual capacity and skills, and influencing, often in hidden ways, the consumption habits and desires so that they are in harmony with, pose no threat to, but profit, the owners.
As Sigmund Freud's nephew Edward Bernays put it:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses... We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized... in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons...who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses.”
The process began in the East India Company's college in the English county of Hertfordshire, whose task was to "provide an education fitted to the training of East India Company recruits prior to their departure for India."
Keith Tribe explores "the function and nature of the teaching of political economy within the College, and emphasizes the manner in which institutional imperatives constrained the development of political economy as an administrative pedagogy." 
Thomas Malthus was professor of political economy at the East India Company College and his teachings on population quickly gained prominence, suiting as they did the ambitions of the East India company and the financial interest of the corporate-imperial class.
He has, in the original meaning of nice, a formula that is easy to grasp, seemingly scientific yet reassuringly moral. Malthus says population multiplies geometrically and food arithmetically. His second job as a pastor provided the moral overtones. He must have awed his students.
Who does that sound like — a nifty formula, backed up by moral strictures? It brings to mind that Ted Talk in which Bill Gates invented CO2xPxSxExC.
Those who read The Economist magazine will recognize the satisfying internal logic of every article, fitting the weaver's frame, the weft pressed smoothly into place. The reader leaves with a self-congratulatory feeling that he has understood the world sufficiently to go forth and act. The Economist is praxis, brought to you by the House of Rothschild.
Today those who seek to revive or perpetuate a corporate-imperial ideology still dance around the dry bones of Malthus who died when Marx was 20, the winter before he entered the University of Bonn as a law student.
It was Frederick Engels who used the term Völkerabfälle, translating as "people waste" or equally, "racial trash" in describing smaller nations like the Gaels, Bretons, Basques and Serbs. Split off from larger states or motivated by separatist movements they were "fanatical standard-bearers of counter-revolution."
They were an obstruction to the unifying thrust of history. Peasants and country peoples played no role in the future and Engels, like Marx, gave no quarter to the non-material or the immeasurable. As the management guru Peter Drucker would later say: “If you can’t measure it, you can’t improve it.”
This is a stumbling block that should have been familiar to Marx. He can’t see beyond his cosmopolitan mindset to lives of different culture and scale: that giant industries cannot transform magically into worker-owner artisanal workshops. Thus it is impossible for the state to wither away as Marx proposed — especially if states and economies are constructed for top-down management, technocrats controlling the "commanding heights of the economy."
This oversight in Marx's work reveals he could not comprehend the gravity of what it does to a human to be shoe-horned into the factory system, to be whittled down into Organization Man.
Alienation, Marx described better than anyone: how subjugation to the capitalist and factory process deprives a species that thrives by shaping the material Earth; how this alienates a human from group identity. Yet he failed to see how technology itself hollows out humanity and makes people willing slaves to consumption.
Born to be wild
Humans have lived for most of their existence in the midst of nature. Our greatest leaps of technology involved not silicon and diodes but in the study of seeds and plants, the husbanding of livestock, learning how to shape the land in ways that increase production without poisoning or defiling it.
Far from superstitious creatures of the dark ages we constructed aqueducts even before we built cathedrals. Clean water did more for health than petrochemical medicine ever did. Water power led to wheels, wheels to gears, water to steam, and together to pistons and engines. Machinery was born.
Why does the progressive ideology insist that we lived as barbarians before the Roosevelts, Rockefellers and Carnegies stepped in to save us? They have history the wrong way around. Without the discoveries listed above there would have been no car engine for Standard Oil to power, no tank for the tiger.
The dirty secret is that like any totalizing force or empire, they must defame all that came before. The new dominion cannot stand if the people know their past.
Despite the ideology that labels itself Net Zero this or that, humans in nature had no interest in despoiling the Earth and archeology and history can show that co-habitation with nature was more common than its destruction.
"Marx (like Plato) had zero interest in the lessons that wild nature could teach man and advocated, effectively, the end of small-scale rural production...
The extermination of bio-diverse nature and of the conscious lives of those who lived from it didn’t, ultimately, concern him, just as it doesn’t those who, despite much high-sounding ‘eco-friendly’ rhetoric, are still engaged in the suppression of subsistence and of vernacular independence."
And he quotes David Cayley:
"Marx’s “proletarians” with “a world to win” and “nothing to lose but their chains” are, in fact, tightening their fetters by trying to improve their position in the kingdom of scarcity rather than fighting for a restoration of the commons."
Allen ends his article with a call to value Marx's priceless observations and critique of capitalism but to reject his "pathetically gradualist reformist — and statist — politics, his monomaniacal worship of technological, bourgeois-managed progress."
In doing so we can recognize The Great Reset for what it is: a false choice, the appearance of two camps, reds and blues, eco-warriors and fossil fuel dinosaurs. This is a deliberate distraction, as Jeff Gibbs' documentary Planet Of The Humans shows. 
We begin to understand why the Left has been largely silent in Event Covid and why communists such as Susan Michie, member of the UK government's Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), have actively participated in the deliberate terrorizing of the population as described in the minutes of SAGE from Mar 22, 2020:
“The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent' by ‘using hard-hitting emotional messaging.”
When a television presenter dared to ask Michie about her four-decades-long membership of the Communist Party, newspapers criticised his impertinence, even describing the presenter as "a dangerous man."
In fairness to Michie, it tells us rather more about the true nature and intent of government that it feels not a flicker of unease about communist affiliation when that person is working towards the same goals of control of the people. See my article The Never Normal is Forever — UK Gov aims to Embed Control through 'New Identities'
The reality is that the global economy has long been on a slippery slope towards insolvency. The crisis is caused not by capitalism itself but by the monetary system. That is why the plandemic had a monetary, not a medical origin. Event Covid is a cover for a monetary reset — the introduction of a new central bank digital currency.
Roughly coinciding with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Western nations decided they no longer wanted to maintain the welfare state, the post war pension system or the manufacturing, industrial base that supported Western lifestyles. They launched the first of several "tariff and trade agreements" starting with NAFTA and GATT, which dismantled the industrial network that made it profitable to manufacture goods in places like the U.S. and Britain. Factories moved to South America and Asia. You might ask why factories were not moved to the former USSR, which would have been closer and just as cheap but that's a story for another time.
A series of managed booms and bust, on an ever-more frequent basis, allowed the privately-owned central banks, like the U.S. Federal Reserve and the Bank of England, to keep interest rates low, issue credits, pump up markets until they burst, then call in the collateral. Gradually, relentlessly, assets shifted into the hands of The Investors, the richest of the owners.
It was clear by the turn of the century that the American dream was over. Yet which president wanted to be the one to tell Americans? It would be political suicide to reveal they would no longer enjoy living standards 30 per cent higher than the rest of the developed world. Politicians had an interest in maintaining the illusion of wealth thanks to the dollar's over-valuation as the world's reserve currency. That is, until the financial crash of 2007-8 which made it clear the central banks had no interest in fixing a broken system. Still, only the most prescient realized they were going to pull the plug.
They had made the decision to pull the plug back in the 1990s when they began de-industrializing the West. Corporations were footloose, no longer tied to the nation in which they were registered. They payed barely any tax — and got away with it. Wealth would seek the cheapest labour markets and their customer base was global.
In Aug 2019, central bankers from around the world met at Jackson Hole and proposed “Going Direct”, which was a plan drawn up by BlackRock asset managment, one of the top four owners of the world’s corporations. This injected liquidity not into the banks but directly to institutions: corporations and government agencies, allowing them to survive while they pulled the plug on main street. That allowed the Amazons and Googles to thrive, even while they shut down the credit system to prevent a complete freeze up of the system.
In Sep 2019, the Federal Reserve intervened to flood the repo market (global cash market) with cash, boosting liquidity M1 by more than 20 per cent and M2 by more than 30.
In Jan-Feb 2020, Event Covid was announced. The smart money fled the market. Medical martial law shut down small business and farms throwing them into debt entrapment from which they cannot escape.
In Jun 2020, the World Economic Forum published The Great Reset, which is the Davos shop window for the corporate and political drones. It provides the talking points, the mantra that covers the decisions listed above. Prince Charles was given the job of making the announcement to underline who's in charge. I use the shorthand Rockefeller, Rothschild & Regina to indicate that the giant corporations, the central bankers and the old money are behind the reset. For short, they are The Investors.
You cut the cake across a different angle to see that the digital-financial complex reflects the interests of the defence contractors who run the government payment and information systems, the banks who run the financial accounts, and the social media corporations and big pharma who are more closely tied to military-intelligence than most people realize. If you want to call it by the long name it is the military-pharma-banking-(social) media complex.
This is "the system" that the Left is cheering on. This is what people mistake for a path to communism, including those who think of themselves as communists.
The creation of a false choice of two options is the time-honoured method of steering the dupe to a third.
Antony Sutton documented beyond contention that Third Reich was a corporate enterprise, using government as cover for massive profiteering — exactly as today.
 Darren Allen, Off-Guardian, Oct 23, 2021 — Goodbye Mr Marx
 Fordham Journal , 2018 -- A Brief History of the Corporate Form and Why it Matters by Tyler Halloran
 Keith Tribe, 2007 — Political economy at the East India College 1806–1858
 Jeff Gibbs' documentary Planet Of The Humans on Moneycircus Blogspot, Oct 2020 — Renewable Energy & The Great Reset: Handmaidens to the Cull