“You’re either with us or against us.” - George W. Bush
Resistance is a term being tossed around in widespread usage in our modern political climate. Resistance to capitalism. Resistance to racism. Resistance to the police state.
Resistance to the status quo is an inevitable facet of modern civilization. For thousands of years, humans have “risen up” against perceived injustices committed by those in power, whether it be the church, the government, or any other structure of authority.
As power rises, corruption within that power structure eventually gives way to the need for resistance as a means to create positive change for a more harmonious, just, and equitable society.
At least, in theory.
Often, the act of resistance can become the equal and opposite reaction of the thing it is resisting, leading to a new level of violence, injustice, and hatred carried out in the name of righting the original wrong.
Raging against the machine is about as old as the machine itself. It’s a repeating pattern throughout history, no matter how fresh its latest manifestation may appear on the surface.
It’s a pattern the German philosopher G.W.F. Hegel gave name to it in his concept of “dialectics”, which rely on a contradictory process between opposing sides (thesis vs. antithesis) eventually producing a synthesis of these opposing perspectives.
Under these circumstances of contradicting and opposing perspectives, division and conflict are inevitable. One can see this playing out in our current political predicament ad-nauseum, regardless of the issue.
Race, religion, gender, political affiliation, environmentalism, war, police brutality, etc. Regardless of the issue, the same result can be witnessed: intense division, overt dehumanization of the other “side”, and a society torn at the seams with immense dissonance from the resulting unresolved tension.
Unfortunately, without the context and space to step back and witness the dialectics in play, most people fall prey to the trap of picking one side or the other. Those who decide to remain neutral are vilified for not picking sides, as it is viewed as a lack of moral fortitude and commitment to the cause.
But what if the powers that be know this conflict is inevitable? Due to careful historical analysis, what if this elite class could not only predict this outcome but could actually agitate it along in order to guide it towards a desired synthesis?
The Hegelian dialectic, often termed “Problem. Reaction. Solution.”, can be seen clearly in the supposed battle between capitalism and communism.
Political historian Antony Sutton spent a large amount of his life devoting himself to bringing this reality to light.
In his book, “Wall St. and The Bolshevik Revolution”, Sutton illustrates how this battle is not quite what it appears at first glance.
"One barrier to a mature understanding of recent history is the notion that all capitalists are the bitter and unswerving enemies of all Marxists and socialists. This erroneous idea originated with Karl Marx and was undoubtedly useful to his purposes. In fact, the idea is nonsense.*
“There has been a continuing, albeit concealed, alliance between international political capitalists and international revolutionary socialists — to their mutual benefit...The open-minded reader should bear two clues in mind: monopoly capitalists are the bitter enemies of laissez-faire entrepreneurs; and, given the weaknesses of socialist central planning, the totalitarian socialist state is a perfect captive market for monopoly capitalists, if an alliance can be made with the socialist powerbrokers. "
The China Contradiction
Nowhere is this seemingly contradictory view more clear than in communist China. David Rockefeller, a billionaire globalist capitalist of the highest order, stated in a New York Times opinion piece in 1973 his affinity for the Maoist revolution in China:
“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering high morale and community of purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao's leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history."
If the Maoist revolution produced the anti-capitalist ideals of Marx, would a Grade A capitalist such as Rockefeller really be cheering on its successes? Nevermind the fact that the price of the Chinese Revolution was anywhere from 80-100 million dead, this communist revolution would seem to be opposed to the capitalist philosophy guiding Rockefeller.
But taken in the context of Sutton’s research that many monopolistic capitalists love the idea of communism for its efficiency in eliminating competition, it begins to appear much more logical in a broader context.
To the elite class, communism and capitalism are both means to the same end of enriching themselves with power. It is for this reason that modern-day China is the embodiment of everything wrong with both communism and capitalism.
The CCP has a stranglehold on its citizens. Free speech is non-existent. Privacy is a dirty word, as the technocratic’s wet dream of a social credit score implemented by an inhuman set of algorithms and unending surveillance has created a society deprived of its soul.
“But that’s not real communism”
Whether the result of communism or capitalism, China is the manifestation of a monopolized society, one that serves as a chilling reminder of just how wrong a resistance movement can go.
If your resistance movement leads to a centralized, authoritarian power structure, you can be sure it will toss you aside as soon as it no longer requires your participation. Replacing capitalist masters with communist/socialist rulers is a recipe for totalitarianism because it ignores the root causes of the problem.
Ultimately, it’s not about oppression through capitalism or communism, it’s about the oppression itself. Whether delivered at the point of gun, the strike of a pen, through a religious edict, or a screaming mob, the issue is one of artificial power and authority.
Many in America are screaming for society to be remade, reformed, and rebirthed into a more just and equitable outcome for all. But without careful consideration of the means, actions, and tactics that often include coercion, violence, and centralization of power, this current “resistance” movement is more likely to lead to an undesirable outcome for all involved.
It’s no accident that the word “revolution” in a non-political context ends with something ending up right where it began.