3.3 The Ideology of Capitalist Civilization and its Religionization

Civilizations are formed over a long period of time and on the basis of ideological constructions. Questions such as “did the material culture exist before the immaterial culture?” have no meaning. They only create confusion. Let me clarify this point with an example. For a long time, there was much debate over whether the constituents of matter and light are wave-like or particle-like, especially to the question as to which aspect is primary. It is now generally accepted that the constituents are wave-like and particle-like at the same time. This is known as the wave-particle duality. It is also widely accepted that the universe essentially developed through a fundamental dialectic of the wave-particle duality. In this dialectic, we don’t see destruction but development. Although its nature may be different, the material/immaterial duality plays a similar role. They do not oppose one another: they are constituent factors that complement one another. They generate one another through differentiation. Just as there is a wave or factor of immaterial culture that is triggered or caused by each particle or material culture, there is also particle or factor of material culture formed by each wave or immaterial culture. There is a general aberration of analytical intelligence within the civilizational system which is due to the advantageous system that it has formed: They wish to systematize and perpetuate their interests by building absolutes, such as immutable rules, absolute laws that all must comply with, precedence of gods, the state’s divinity and perpetuity, as well as dichotomies like the perfection of Forms and temporality of phenomena, unchanging substance. and volatility of form. This is contrary to the universal dialectic of existence.

The discussion that human society consists of two parts, base and superstructure, is closely related to these constructed aberrations of civilization. In Hegel’s system, he gives precedence to superstructure, state, and law, just as he gives precedence to Geist (or Reason or Spirit) in terms of the universal system. However, Marx gives precedence to the base –forces and means of production and the social relations of the production whereby he claimed he “placed Hegel on his feet.”3 But I think he shares the same mentality as Hegel. And what is that? Where for one something is a fundamental element, for the other it is secondary or the determined. This is falling into the vulgar logic of subject-object distinction. Although they claim the opposite, they have maintained the mentality of the former civilization. The answer to why Marx’s socialism was not successful is hidden in this logic. Not only does his definition in relation to economy consist of great complexity, he also uses all of classical civilization’s tools of conception. Despite the heroism and the truth that has been spoken, the result shows us that the reality is not what it was interpreted to be.

The ideological construction of capitalist civilization (or modernity) was so masterful that it surpassed that of the Sumerian priests and has been systematized. It may even be said that at first the state made a great headway with ideology. All civilizations avoid the impression of having been created by the same God. This is really important. For example, let’s examine the Prophet Muhammad. The contents of the first and the last verses of the Quran are very different. The concept of God is continuously developed. The God that said “read” at the beginning later develops a system. These verses, piece by piece, have formed the system or, more precisely, have laid the foundation of the system. Later a huge ideological corpus was formed, but the construction of the system has taken many centuries.

Without truly understanding all the aspects of capitalist modernity’s systematics we cannot really construe its mental tools. Capitalist modernity has not constructed all of its concepts, hypothesis, and implementations on its own. It has inherited a legacy over thousands of years. Through this inheritance it achieves a new architectural layout and content. Its own class, and later the one or two state classes constructed just like it, are all integrated together via an ideological construction. This integration is then completed with the addition of a spectrum of things such as fashion to philosophy, together with the control of production and consumption, as well as the control over politics. It then does the same thing by spreading it over the continent and globally. People who develop ideologies, especially Descartes and Francis Bacon, constructed the new principles of reason and utopias required by formations that made themselves felt in the sixteenth century. It may sound simple but by putting the dichotomy of body and soul on the agenda this led to the dichotomy of subject and object. As if in a chain reaction thoughts that are later constructed shall be escalated to the extent that they spearhead “capitalism and bourgeoisie.” There is not only a break away from feudal reason, but a new reason is being constructed. All this is done for the benefit of a new class and all its various acts. Moreover, and more importantly, the new ruling class achieves its supremacy over the new and old classes through these ideological constructs, a very ancient game, renewed time and again. The new priest class is now called the philosophers and scientists. New concepts and theories are continuously taken but renewed from the feudal and even the slave-owning ideologies. Depending on the situation they are either patched or a completely new model is created (but with the same principles).

An evaluation of Descartes alone will highlight the striking elements of the ideological construction. Initially, he doubts everything. If we decrypt his message: The feudal class ideological armor, and therefore rule, must be overcome. If he talked openly he would have had to face the Inquisition. He was obviously afraid of being burnt alive. Therefore, he resorts to an abstract philosophy. Later, he concludes “I think therefore I am.” This signals that all ideological preparations are completed and its elements shall be put into action one after another. He tells all to “doubt everything and the only way to prove one’s existence is to have powerful thoughts.” It is not that hard to decrypt what is being said: The lifestyle imposed by feudalism has no value at all. You could construct a new life with your powerful thoughts! Through the dichotomy of body and soul the importance of this world is reminded to God and the world beyond. After God’s initial push, the universe is set into a continuous mechanical motion. If we decrypt this sentence we find that although the creators of the old world are fundamental, there is now a new civilization that is set into motion. Thus, a new civilization can be constructed. If we interpret what is being said in term of class, it heralds the emergence of a new class. It has the power to think. It can arrange its own world through its own laws of motion and action.

If we try the same thing with Francis Bacon, then we shall see that experimentation is essential in his reasoning. If experiments verify a certain thing, then that certain thing can be generalized. Any thought that is not experimental cannot be scientific and hence of any value. Meaning that “everything shall be learned through implementation and action. Don’t believe in the old fallacies. Science is power. Thoughts that are acquired through your actions and trials can only strengthen you.” Its decryption in terms of class: It calls on the new powers that have formed over the surplus value using the methods of capitalist monopoly, “Not according to the old dogmatic reason but under the guidance of your own acquisitions you should try out everything, develop their results and then generalize them; you shall as a result be empowered with knowledge and hence construct your own home and worlds.”

It is of course incorrect to view the increasingly growing army of scientists and philosophers with the onset of the sixteenth century as the leading proponents of capitalist monopoly. We are aware that the majority of those who took their places in the three important historical movements (Renaissance, Reformation, and Enlightenment) were people of profound wisdom and morals who had a free mentality. They hated capitalism-a system whose consequences were apparent even in its early days, with its ruling clique and their way of life. It is, on the other hand, without a doubt that the revolution in mindset which appeared in Europe is also of value to humanity in general. Leaders of this revolution were mainly humanists. They kept away from religion and nationalism. Indeed, the work on science and philosophy itself is a revolution in its own. If they must absolutely be associated with a social section, then it is not the section that is affiliated with the values of the classical civilization but with those who are most in need of democracy, freedom. and equality. We are of course grateful to them even as i write these lines. But this is not the problem. The appropriated surplus product was used by the new social class in their construction of themselves as rulers. This new social class similarly appropriated the surplus products and values of this mentality in order to use them in the construction of their own mindset. Such an action can easily be called the theft of mentality. The bourgeoisie knew how to construct the new modernity in terms of their own class interests. It is of vital importance to know the following characteristics of the monopolist state cliques: They shall “throw a sprat to catch a whale.” They knew how to exploit the pioneers of the new mindset by skillfully playing with the difficulties endured by them (economic, social, and political), just as they exploited those at the bottom who created economy. They realized this exploitation by placing so many craftspeople, scientists, and philosophers under their own control and even integrating them into their tools of power. They also knew how to neutralize those who resisted: through the use of the same economic, social, and political means. We are all aware of what happened to people such as Erasmus, Galileo, and Bruno.

Just as it was possible to renew control over economy using state monopoly, the ideological monopolist movement had similar influences. Rebellions were quashed through extensive action in the political, ideological, and economic fields. By the end of the eighteenth century it was not just a victory won in the economic monopoly front (industry), but also in the political (French Revolution) and ideological front (nationalism and nation-state) as well. Those that lost were Christian Catholicism, classical monarchies, empires, and humanism. Just as economy was absorbed by its counterpart monopolists, the democratic movements and nations were also taken under the process of being absorbed by the nation-state and nationalism. Thus, the aristocracy and Catholic Church, as well as all Christianity-not preserving their former reputation-sought to renew their alliance with the new masters in return for the protection of their interests, and they sought to reconcile under the most favorable terms. Therefore, as the nineteenth century begins, it is not only the victory of the new economic monopolies (commercial, industrial, and financial). The ideological victory was just as important and it was won. The way religions were constructed by the feudal civilization had also become undone. Protestantism was the end result. ‘I he Catholic Church lost its magnificent position. Max Weber has already shown us in his splendid presentation how compatible Protestant morals were with that of capitalism. Secularism, a concept in need of analysis, was one of the ideological successes of this period. The Christian world assaulted European people’s mentality with much dogmatism whilst they still were mostly free tribes. Its conflict with the world was visible. It was not difficult to guess that when it lost its political and economic influence it would be very quickly ideologically surpassed. What was more important was the monstrosity called secularism. It is still quite an ambiguous matter to determine whether it is encompassed by religion or not. The bourgeoisie embraced the phenomenon called positivism. But since positivism declared itself the new world religion, how can secularism be outside the boundaries of religion? What then does a new religion mean?

Positivism’s religious nature is due to its reliance on empirical facts. For positivism, essentially, an empirical fact is the most fundamental truth. There is no truth if it is not factual. However, research and philosophy (as a whole) show that facts and perception are the same. Perception, on the other hand, is a simple mental process, a method to coarsely inform (not scientifically and in a very deceptive way) oneself through the most superficial observation of the object. To make the shift from facts to positivism is to grant an object the role of being a fundamental reality. A similar approach forms the basis of paganism: the object is worshiped. Thus, positivism may attack metaphysics, especially religion, as much as it likes; it has itself become the most vulgar materialist religion because it takes the object to be the truth. That is, it is a new derivative of object-paganism in modernity, and positivism, as its representative, is metaphysics. Actually, it is more superficial. Nietzsche is of the same opinion. But let’s discuss this in more detail in my next book, The Sociology of Freedom.

Positivism damaged the mentalities at least as much as the medieval theologies did. It was not even aware of the great immaterial world of human societies. It declared the end of the metaphysical world and threw all the human sanctities, the accumulation of millions of years, into the garbage bln. It was a movement of total Ignorance. The title ascribed by the Prophet Muhammad to Amr Ibn Hisham was Abu Iahl (the Father of Ignorance). This title is best fitted to these positivists. They are the modern Abu Iahls in terms of the social sciences. It is important to understand that the ideological mesh of irreligiousness (or laicism, from the Greek laikos, layman) and positivism (positivist philosophy or religion), together with vulgar materialism, are closely related to capitalist monopolies. It has been exactly four hundred years since the destruction and terrorization of this new society and its immaterial world was achieved through the usage of these three ideological versions.

The victory of capitalism’s material culture would not have been possible if the society that preserved its existence with the influence of immaterial culture (morals) had not dissolved. This is why there was a need for an ideological conquest. Their anti-religiousness was due to its moral dimension. These three philosophies were quite effective in the destruction of society’s morals. Societies whose morals are drained can easily go either off the track or surrender. This is exactly what happened. Secularism through its irreligiousness destroyed the moral virtue inherent in religion. Positivism, because it is based on empiricism, paved the way for the new idolatry (the present stage of consumption, that is, the passion to own things). Thus, an enormous moral decline also occurred in this way.

Positivism’s anti-metaphysical stance is one of its most ignorant attacks. Metaphysics has been a human need since the formation of humanity, not only for civilizations who are built around states but for all humans. No single person past or present is able to survive with information, science, or even, as positivists put it, with scientism alone. This is not impossible but our intellectual power is as yet insufficient. If you take away or destroy the metaphysical world, then you will either end up with a lifeless body or crazy people who will not abide by any laws. This is indeed what happened. In any case, facts only constitute a portion of the truth.

Quantum and cosmology have not had their final words. Life on the other hand has not been analyzed yet; we have not even become aware of its greatest mystery. This is the reason why positivism deserves to be designated as modern ignorance. Vulgar materialism is not all that different. The questions associated with life and mind cannot be explained through mirror image theories: even science itself stumbles upon a related new miracle each day. Social life is even more complicated than life and the mind. Once it had become clear that these were movements of ignorance and could become a meaningful center of attention, a more disguised synthesis of these three philosophies stepped in: bourgeois internationalism and nationalism. They appear to be paradoxical but they actually complement one another.

Internationalism of the bourgeoisie or its globalism: In the history of civilization, people who constructed ideologies were careful about two things: those sitting at the top floor and the common symbolic values. They are symbolic expressions of the common interests. Ideologies always have a symbolic quality but it is important to understand whose interests are symbolized. The council of gods at the top floor of the Ziggurat was a symbol. En, Enlil, and Marduk represented the supreme council of the hierarchy that was newly emerging and institutionalizing. We will probably never know whether this symbolization was intentional or spontaneous. But the tradition is an ancient one and has some general traits. This very symbolization became more complicated and continuously transformed but was nevertheless carried through to the present. For those at the lowest floor, symbols of enslavement and servitude are formed. Sharp and clearly defined lines are drawn between the council of sacred gods and them. The servant must meet the requirements of being a servant and must leave the duties of the gods to them. One may well ask “what did society lose or gain with such stories?”

The present-day council of the upper floor meets regularly in Davos, whether openly or in secrecy. However, this one thing is for certain: Those who constitute the present day upper layers –the unmasked and naked versions of the ones that sat in the upper floor of the Ziggurats– at times appear in human society. In these meetings, the priests on duty continuously preach that there is no reason for humans to be scared, the situation is under total control, there are enough war preparations and stocks, and that their defeat should not even be contemplated. The necessary conclusions are drawn by all concerned. The distinguished priests enforce this internationalist ideology on the minds and emotions of people with saturated coverage on advanced media channels. The universities. mosques, and churches now lag behind. The age of communication is at the same time the age of globalism. Consumption and entertainment is in line with the final stages of all past civilizations. Even though the ecology is truly being destroyed for the first time they do not allow any criticism of themselves. Although societies, cities, rural areas, and demography continuously signal unsustainability they do not hear or see in line with their internationalist ideology. It is as if there is no community that can resist being drugged with sex, sports, and arts as well as having their value content being drained.

Nationalism: Although it may look to be the opposite of internationalism, it is indeed the strategic tool of the new “divide and conquer” religion used by the upper floor internationalists to drug the lower floors of the society. Positivism is the most effective ideological tool that capitalism can‘t do without. It enables capitalism to overcome the insufficiencies and problems created by secularism, vulgar materialism, and scientism. Above all, it is the only effective religion of the nation-state. Each civilizational era has its own effective beliefs without which they would not have been successful. Nationalism is the most effective pattern of belief of modernity. Its construction is quite simple: Each factor that constitutes the nation must be turned into a sacred belief.

The next step is to equate all these with honor and to penetrate them so much during all activities at school, in the barracks, mosques, family, and other places that even the most insensitive individual shall be awakened and turned aggressive. You have just been successful at creating the most effective religion. Contrary to widespread belief, religions are not constructed to prepare us for the afterlife or the world beyond. They are political programs and strategies. In terms of worshiping they are daily educational tools.

It is a fundamental function of sociology to evaluate religion in such a way despite the severe disguise. If this is not done, there will be no escape from being a sub-branch of scientism. Moreover, religions have sanctities and they are of great importance. It is also a serious task to bring them out into the open. If religion, through the betrayal of its sanctities, has been turned into a vulgar ideological tool, then it has been pushed to hypocrisy by its own preachers. In short, religion is also a tool much used by today’s nationalism: the tool of a tool. I shall only define it here since I will be discussing the formation and use of religion in more detail in the next two topics.

It may be really difficult to free the mind, thought, and therefore free action, not only from capitalist modernity’s economic monopoly but also from the influence of the centuries old ideological tools. However, it is the fundamental duty of democratic modernity.

The reason why I have directed such harsh criticism against social-democrats, national liberationists, as well as anarchists, utopists, various fraternity orders, and even Marx and Marxists, is because there has not been an effective ideological construction of democratic modernity. It is quite clear that Marx and the Marxists tried to adopt a stance and resist against the emerging capitalist monopoly. The democratic tendencies of the others should not be belittled either. But in comparison to the present situation of capitalist modernity, it is going through its most comfortable period. Despite the presence of profound and continuous crisis, despite being anti-social, despite environmental disasters, unemployment, and poverty that it has caused. It becomes clear how insufficient, wrong, and passive they are.

Therefore, the democratic civilizational front must re-examine the heritage of all the past ages in order to pick out what it needs to successfully complete its ideological move forward and to complete the missing parts from its analysis of today’s concrete situation. There is no other duty that is more urgent and sacred.

Notes

3. “The dialectic of Hegel was placed upon its head; or rather, turned off its head, on which it was standing, and placed upon its feet.” Friedrich Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy,” Die Neue Zeit, Nos. 4 and 5 (1886).