Death of the State: Jihadis, Capitalists, & the Radical Left
What could be the common denominator among these three very different types of convictions and ideological outlooks (1)? After all, does the left activist not look at the capitalist as a parasite and the jihadist as the personification of intolerance? In the meantime, the jihadist would probably slaughter both if they don’t repent of their sins, and just as the left activist who sees the capitalist as an exploiter, the jihadist sees the left activist as a moral freak, of which it is necessary to cleanse the land. The capitalist sees in both potential customers insofar as a good market niche is found.
For capital, they are figures on the the board of the stock exchange, which with the help of the 'invisible hand' of the market will help promote global capital. After all, the capitalist knows that the jihadist is dying in the desert of Libya or Syria not for the glory of his God (“Allahu akhbar”), but in the name of some corporation which is to build a gas pipeline, after the construction of a new reality in the place of former secular, authoritarian states (2).
In the meantime, I have the impression that each of these three ideological types (using the categorical apparatus of Max Weber), sees in the other two useful idiots who through their actions in one way or another help in the building of the future world.
Yes, the jihadist might understand the reason and logic according to which capital (3) provides him with weapons, but, nevertheless, he sees the protagonists of capitalism as useful idiots (for the moment) who after the implementation of the global Umma will pay for their sins.
From the other side, in the left activists of the West, the jihadist (from Belgium, for example) might see useful idiots who are destroying the foundations of the old Christian society and contributing to the moral degradation of a population which is either lost in sin, thereby condemning themselves to physical and eternal metaphysical death, or against the background of the destruction of all values, will see in Islam (of course not in any Islam, but specifically in the form which Wahhabi jihadists preach), a way out of the abyss of the modern life of his society.
At the same time, the capitalist might see the jihadists as infantry clearing the ground for the entry of multinational corporations onto the stage, while seeing left-wing activists as useful soldiers who divert towards themselves the attention of the socially disenfranchised masses of working people.
Together with this, instead of having to deal with huge social problems and the ever-increasing violation of the rights of workers/the working-class, they deal with post- materialist values (4) and postmodern rights such as the rights of animals, transgenders, or whatever other minority. On the other hand, in the classical interpretation of Marxism, capital is seen as a useful phenomenon because, due to its contradictions, it will destroy itself and leads to the liberation of man through the vanishing of the institutions which limit him, a main one of which is the state.
In practice, this appears different. Although in words, they are against the capitalist system, in fact they are increasingly ready to go out on the streets for postmodern values rather than for the rights of the vast majority of the disadvantaged, such as the average working man (5); and if they come out, then it is not independently but united together in a group of marginals who join the protests and strikes of either the classic left forces, political parties, or trade unions, like in Brussels not long ago. In other times, the leftists engaged in brawls and street fights against such marginals representative of the far-right, such as racists and Nazis of all kinds, and, of course, against the imaginary idea of capitalism. But, it is more than obvious that this “struggle” against capital is ludicrous, because the system is not jeopardized by a few broken windows.
In the early 20th century the foundations of capitalism were shaken throughout Europe, and then later on in the rest of world due to work of the older generation of leftists who, unlike the new generation (the 'new-left'), struggled in the interests of the collective, of class, and not the individual. It is because of the above-mentioned reasons that such harmless new-left extremists are beneficial to capital.
Speaking of ideology, which stands against the background of neo-Trotskyism, promoted by extreme left movements, it is necessary to note that such an ideology is the final stage of liberalism (or one of its branches) which, even logically arising out of liberalism, already has very little in common with the enlightenment ideals of John Locke, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, and other founders of classical liberalism.
This postmodern ideology of the total liberation of the individual from all chains and barriers which hinders the individual (6), sees that extreme religious views are an example of the right of the individual to choose, especially if they are not in the majority of society. Left activists in their majority are naturally found in the Christian or post-Christian societies, where the indigenous “old” population for them represents the “majority” which represents a sample of “repression” on the individual.
For such extreme [left] minorities, a minority of any type is threatened and their rights must be protected from the majority, which is represented by the mass of uneducated “heteronormatively reared idiots”; the potential enforcers of repression. Therefore, for example, in contrast to the French conservative who reacts to the dramatic emergence of a large group of Islamists in his neighborhood as if it is a threat, they [leftists] prefer not to notice such, and the native Frenchman is stamped as a “fascist.” The leftists gave themselves the right to be the social police, who measure the level of political correctness in society, defining who is “fascist” and who is not, who threatens the minority that is in danger, and who thereby threatens the rights of the workers here - these are the remnants of an old folklore.
In essence, in the developed Western countries, new-left extremists and Islamists are in a state of quiet union: Islamists are passive, they don’t attack the leftists, but in the same time they do not refuse protections when leftists look at them as naturally unenlightened, but individuals, who should be defended from the dangerous majority. [Editor's note: this was written prior to the Charlie Hebdo attacks]
But, despite all the contradiction of the ultimate eschatology, the three parties mentioned in this article have alternative views of a positive end of history. The Islamist/jihadist, left-wing activists/neo-Trotskyists/anarchists, and capitalists are all united by one common idea which is seen by all as an ideal, and sort of common denominator: this ideal being the Death of the State.
The jihadist dreams of the global Umma without state borders, in which Islam dominates (the kind which he sees), the capitalist in accordance with the philosophy of anarcho- capitalism, such as the Chicago School of Economics, represented by Milton Friedman and such philosophers as Robert Nozick and even Friedrich Von Hayek and others.
These envision a worldwide laissez faire, in which state borders do not hinder the movement of goods, people, and capital, while the postmodern leftist sees a borderless world. This new-leftist vision describes a world where there are no institutions which limit the freedom of the individual, among which one of the most important - besides the church and family - naturally, is the state.
John Lennon described this world by the stanzas in the famous song: “Imagine there's no countries, it isn't hard to do, nothing to kill or die for, and no religion too ... You may say I'm a dreamer, but I'm not the only one, I hope some day you join us ...” Naturally, the coalition partners in the project of the death of the state find themselves as strange bedfellows. But as they say in the famous phrase of the 1959 classic film Some like it hot: “No body's perfect.”
The main characteristic feature of the three visions of the death of the state or the end of history, to some extent, is the indispensable messianic belief in the the truth of their convictions and ultimate global victory. In the case of the anarcho-liberal, this is the belief in the assured victory of the world market as a logical step of global progress; in the second case for Wahhabis it is a belief in the victory of the global Umma; in the third for the new-left: a belief in the global liberation of the “enslaved man” from all institutions through the destruction of the institutions of enslavement, i.e., the traditional institutions of collective existence. This confirms the victory of Eurovision 2014, Conchita Wurst, who in giving her victory speech issued a direct ideological manifesto: “This night is dedicated to everyone who believes in a future of peace and freedom. You know who you are. We are unity, and we are unstoppable”.
Similarly, Bajro Ikanović, a known jihadist on the internet from Bosnia, believes in the final victory of Islam and claims that any kind of global state and statehood does not interest him. In an interview in the Belgrade newspaper “Politika,” he says: “I left from Bosnia never to return except with a weapon in hand. I am part of a revolution, and now is the dawn of Islam. But the difference between us and other revolutionaries is that we are firmly convinced of the correctness of Islam as the only true path and as the only way by which man can return to the framework of ‘normalcy’... Believe me, I’ve already forgotten about Bosnia.”(7)
One would have to be stupid or a hypocrite to not see the obvious and apparent fact that, geopolitically, such described groups whose interests are the death of sovereignty itself and statehood are opposed by Russia. Yes, an imperfect, contradictory, and partly corrupt Russia. Yes, Russia is full of representatives of all groups, and sometimes they occupy very important places. Russia, as she now finds herself, is completely unprepared for confrontation. The logical question is “When was she ever ready?” The answer is simple: never, but she survived and still exists. Russia is simultaneously threatened by the international sanctions of global capital ostensibly under the auspices of “Pussy riot”, and also by the constant threat of Islamic terrorism of the Wahhabist persuasion, and an explosion of the North Caucusus, Central Asia, and terror attacks in the large cities of Russia.
Against the background of this threat to Russia, as the main object of impact, it is necessary to understand that all the divisions of the past century are outdated and make no sense in the postmodern era, that is, in view of these threats it is useless to dwell and expend energy. The eternal arguments about who is right - Whites or Reds, Pugachev or the Dynasty, are already senseless. Now, as in the last book of the trilogy “Lord of the Rings,” all the warriors of the past, whether the Chekists or the White emigrants, find themselves in an army of spirit which should help the living, actual Russia/Rus to overcome the threats of a new war, that which is physical in Ukraine, Syria, and in other places, as well as that which is of values and which is happening in the soul of each person, as well described in the book of Sergei Minaev (Духless). Whites and Reds now stand on one side in defense of Russian statehood and in defense of statehood as a principal of the organization of societies throughout the entire world. [This was article was written before the march of the Immortals on Victory Day, May 9th; a prediction?]
 Bearing in mind ideology in pure form without the numerous nuances which naturally exist in each of them. So, this categorization is very conditional.
 Willieam Engdahl recently published an article on this subject: http://
 The word "capital", of course, in this example, sounds like a complete abstraction. Of course, we have in mind specific States and interested parties, which support one or another group of jihadists, depending on the war in question. This article gives a figurative example.
 Using the term of Ronald Inglehart, one of the leading theoreticians of postmodernization.
 Serbian writer and scholar Zoran Chiryakovich wrote about this phenomenon, that is, about the reasons for the disappearance of the student revolt, in a recent article. Students, said Chiryakovich, become snobs by reading postmodern authors such as Jacques Derrida, forgot about social classes, even despising them on the basis of education and the politically incorrectness of ordinary people, for whose rights the generation of the student movement in 1968 was ready to lay down its head. http:// www.politika.rs/rubrike/kolumna-nedelje/Zasto-nema-studentskog-bunta.sr....
 The phenomenon of the liberation of the individual from all signs of any collective identity was described by professor Alexander Dugin in "The fourth political theory."
 From the original Serbian: “Ја сам из Босне отишао да се никада не вратим,
осим са оружјем у руци. Ја сам део револуције и ово је јутро ислама. Разлика између нас и осталих револуционара јесте то што смо ми чврсто убеђени у исправност ислама као јединог правог пута и као јединог начина где се човек може вратити у оквире ’нормалног’ … Веруј ми, ја сам Босну заборавио.” http://www.politika.rs/rubrike/region/263522.sr.html