Section 3: The Modern Leviathan – The Descent of God on Earth

Conceptualization of capitalist modernity cannot be done by economic consideration alone. Not only is it insufficient, but it is also a methodological diversion preventing us from comprehending its relationships and its essence. Therefore, it leads to fuzzy judgments and conclusions. As shown by my definition and analysis of capitalism in Sections 1 and 2, it can operate in the economic area only as an external imposer and a monopolist power. Therefore, it may be better to search for its essence elsewhere. This may also lead to far more accurate findings due to better method. We will continue searching for it there where it most often tries to hide and disguise itself: in the area of state.

Karl Marx searched for capitalism in the economic arena by using methodological, philosophical, historical, and sociological analyses. He concluded that capitalism, characterized by a system of intense crises with a favorable outcome, has a monopolist structure. It does not follow from capitalism’s domination of economy, nor from it imposing a structure on economy, that capitalism is economic in nature. The diversification of money as a tool for accumulation of profits and capital by fluctuating market prices is not possible unless accompanied by political power. There is a need to analyze this political power and its characteristic of coercion together with the consequences thereof. Conceptualization of capital through abstract analysis of political economy will, whether knowingly or with good intentions, lead to methodological errors and fall victim to capitalist paradigms. I am aware of the dangers of proposing an easy and superficial thesis in the absence of a comprehensive analysis, and in criticizing Marx (and the dogmatic and positive approach of those calling themselves Marxists, who, unable to progress beyond being disciples, became tedious and repetitive and unable to further the discussion). However, a hundred and fifty years of theoretical and practical experience has affirmed many times over that Das Kapital serves as the new totem and that it has not really served the workers. This failure, I believe, is mainly due to its erroneous consideration of capitalism as economy and, hence, the futile search for its meaning in economic terms. I believe that making monopolist state policies the cornerstone of economy (despite all its non-economic features) blurs the mind and covers up the problems of capitalism. At the same time, this is an “enlightened” aberration with tragic consequences both politically and ideologically.

Although I am no expert on Hegel or Marx, I consider them to be important; hence, I must comment. Their influence on modern capitalist society was vast and therefore I associate the right to comment with notions of freedom and equality. When Marx and Engels named German philosophy as one of the sources of scientific socialism they must have referred to Hegel, whom they were immensely influenced by, as can be seen from their critique.

Ideologically, Hegel was the peak of metaphysics and the biggest contemporary representative of dialectics. He was a true German philosopher; by this I mean he was the prime mover of German nationalism. Marx and Engels were moving in the right direction as they studied the backwardness of German capitalism, the German bourgeoisie, and the status of the bourgeoisie within German philosophy. Initially, this attitude of theirs was reflected in their critique of Hegel’s Philosophy of Law. Subsequently, the formation of the League of Communists and the work done on the Communist Manifesto consolidated their position in practical terms as well. i believe that. because the 1848 Revolutions fell short of expectations they constituted a profound breaking point. The early indications of deviance into economism started here. I am not arguing that they should not have given such a big role to economy or that it is not necessary to study economy. Moreover, I am not criticizing Das Kapital for being wrong. My main point of criticism is exactly the point on which Marx and Engels criticized Hegel, and that is the priority given to the state and law by Hegel. In my opinion, Hegel started his analysis at the crucial point, where one should start. I believe it was Marx and Engels who made a historical mistake, namely falling into economic reductionism. This misconception is the fundamental reason why the one hundred and fifty years of socialist struggle for freedom and equality –that is, for a democratic society– did not fulfill the expectations. By saying that Hegel was right, I do not say that I embrace his theoretical and practical policies. I only say that he determined the correct point of departure. I emphasize this in order to remove any misunderstanding. The problem is a general problem in Europe and relates to the problems associated with the assumption of power by a statist Europe.

How would the modern Leviathan be formed? The solution, according to Hobbes and Grotius, lay in the absolute necessity of the state and its centralization. With this they created the doctrine of absolutism. They saw modern absolutism, as a state model, as the solution-the tool that would make possible the transition from the feudal to the capitalist era. However, such a tool could not really resolve the crisis. The state problem continued as strongly as before. The fact that capitalism was dominant in the Netherlands and England and that these countries developed hegemony over Europe, severely affected –devastated– France and Germany. France lost repeatedly in its struggle for hegemony. Germany, on the other hand, had not yet secured its “national unity.” All other candidates in the European power struggle, still waiting for prosperity, were deeply troubled by problems of statism. Monarchism and absolutism could not fully overcome these problems. A well-known example illustrating this is France’s Sun King: the absolutism of the magnificent Louis XIV was neither successful against the alliance of the Netherlands and England, nor could it resolve the growing internal problems of the state. What could the other European states have done? Their material and immaterial cultures, as well as their conflicting interests, did not allow them to adopt the state model of the Netherlands and England.

The French Revolution erupted as a result of these conditions and problems. Hence, now there was not only the state question but also the questions associated with the revolution. Lenin discussed these together in his 1917 book, The State and Revolution. The problems associated with power developed into a total crisis. The capitalistic hegemony which had developed in order to resolve the feudal crisis, far from resolving the crisis, made it more profound and universal. Absolutism collapsed, a republic was declared, and a terrible period of terror began. What followed was a mad emperor whose empire, like an ordeal descending from heaven, devastated the whole of Europe. The French overwhelmed Europe with much theory and many wars. What was the guillotine compared to this? (I am thankful for Hegel’s insightful description of the state as God descending to earth and Napoleon as God’s march on earth. This is an explanation that I benefited from and was most charmed with. Finding another statement which so perfectly explains both the new and the old state won’t be easy. In one sentence, he manages to explain what all holy and many secular books attempt to explain. This is true philosophy. It is possible to say that the English practice economy well, the French sociology, and the German philosophy. But I have to emphasize that synthesizing them all may have disadvantages!)

In order to deal with the European absolutism that surrounded him, Napoleon (as far as I know the first to do so) drafted the state model that can be called the “nation-state” model. l He was urging France to become statist in its entirety and to bring Europe to its knees –a plea that succeeded. Napoleon was not in favor of a feudal civilization; indeed, he wished to eliminate it with a revolution. What he wanted was to emulate Alexander or the Roman Principate and Caesar. But the circumstances of this era, the material and immaterial culture in Europe, did not allow for the existence of such an emperor. England, on the other hand, with its more insidious and refined methods, carried out a masterful act of imposing its hegemony in line with its political economy, thus playing the central role in Napoleon’s downfall. Napoleon was about to go mad. Apparently. Napoleon did not learn his lesson from his exile on the island of Elba. After his escape, he vigorously continued his attempts to master Europe. Despite his brilliant war tactics he was defeated at Waterloo and had no hope of making a comeback. With his death on Saint Helena, the small island in the middle of Atlantic Ocean, his last words were about France, armies, and Josephine –words that perfectly characterized a nation-state activist. While the French and the British waged war in order to establish their hegemony, the Germans –specifically Hegel– created an appropriate doctrine. Magnificent ideological work was done –it was not called German ideology for nothing. In practice, the North German Confederation under leadership of the Kingdom of Prussia was gradually composed and on the rise. England supported Prussia (formally between 1756-1762) in order to halt the progress of the French and Austrian states (empires at the beginning stage). With the 1870 victory at Sedan over France and the establishment of German unification, Germany confronted England as the second hegemonic power. Germany was dissatisfied with the way the world was shared out amongst the colonial powers and demanded its own share. But with the conclusion of the First and Second World Wars it lost all of its hegemonic claims, having been defeated just like France.

It has been shown that from the French Revolution until 1945 capitalism continuously (not cyclically) experienced a profound crisis. The German Fuhrer Adolf Hitler started the Second World War. There have been many analyses of fascism, but all the definitions –whether made by the Marxists, liberals, conservatives, or anarchists– have been misleading. None of them had the intention or the power to explain what really happened. The magnificent intellectuals of the Jews, the victims of the Holocaust, also contributed to this misunderstanding. This is because Hitler was the result of everyone’s collective intellectual dirt and political praxis. But, of course, who is to acknowledge this?

I find two assessments by Adorno, the German philosopher with Jewish roots, very meaningful. The essence of the first one, his analysis of capitalist modernity, is: “Wrong life cannot be lived rightly.” Secondly, in relation to the Holocaust camps, he says: “In the name of all that is divine and all that is holy, humanity’s right to speech is over.” 2 I may be wrong, but as I interpret these words to mean that there could be no explanation for genocide. The mask of our civilization has fallen off. It has no right to speak. The Frankfurt School of philosophy is on the trail of truth. But the realization of being involved in this crime and its psychological drawback! affected and disillusioned these intellectuals deeply. It is important that Walter Benjamin and Theodor Adorno grasped and admitted the part played in this by Jewish ideology. The European Union, in its present form, is an attempt to cover up this intellectual dirt-I don‘t believe they have cleaned what is beneath. The depth of the crisis continues.

The third biggest globalization move (in the age of finance) is the practice of controlling the crisis by spreading it in depth over time and location. The official dissolution of the Soviet system in 1989 is also a proof of the nation-state character of the USSR and its role in the permanent crisis. The USA, the new hegemonic power after 1945, is the victorious power of the Cold War. It has declared the Middle East, the major long-term crisis region of the system, a strategic war zone. What is the symbolic meaning of the execution of Saddam Hussein, the former Iraqi Head of State (the “Sun King” of the nation-state in the Middle East)? There is a need for a comprehensive discussion of this issue.

Notes

1. The Napoleonic Code was a French civil law code introduced in March 1804, which came to influence the entire European continent following the Napoleonic wars (1803-1815).

2. Adorno’s quote is from Kulturkritik and Gesellschaft (1951); it is more famously known as the statement that “There can be no poetry after Auschwitz.”